Question: Has there been any discussions regarding photographing children?

[BrianShaw]

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.

Fair? Turnabout is fair game but… filing potentially false allegations with no evidence other than a legal activity, albeit unwise and/or unwanted. Guilty until proven innocent. What’s fair about that in the legal justice system that most of us enjoy. A complete perversion that only a “Karen” could love.

But baseball bats… probably much more fair/effective.

 

[faberryman]

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.

And if you do not get a nod or smile from the parent, I assume you would not take the photograph. I suspect if photographers followed your example, we would not have a problem. Of course, there will always be a few photographers who will not follow your example, and express righteous indignation that their rights are being trampled on, and go ahead and take the pictures anyway, and ruin it for everyone else.

 

[Arthurwg]

Anyway, it's probably not about actual dangers or threats to children but rather a general perception that our social milieu is damaged. That, and the conclusion that most Americans don't seem to like each other very much.

 

[faberryman]

Fair? Turnabout is fair game but… filing potentially false allegations with no evidence other than a legal activity, albeit unwise and/or unwanted. Guilty until proven innocent. What’s fair about that in the legal justice system that most of us enjoy. A complete perversion that only a “Karen” could love.

Certainly not guilty until proven innocent. The police would just conduct an investigation to see if anything was amiss. Happens all the time. An elderly couple reports a lot of people going in and out of the house across the street and are concerned about illegal drug activity. The police investigate. Turns out to be a family reunion. Puts the elderly couple's mind at ease. Just another day on the beat for policemen.

But baseball bats… probably much more fair/effective.

I think baseball bats would be more effective too. I am not a big fan of carrying guns.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Information about you belongs to whoever happens to gather it.

My full quote is: "...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."

You are partially right. The information recorded on the film belongs to the photographer, but the information about me being where I am, doing what I was doing, being with who I was, etc., belongs to me.

The two are not the same. That's because image and context are not the same. Or rather, the photographic image creates new contexts that may or may not have anything to do with the actual context of what was captured.

We all know this: photography puts on a single plane a three dimensional scene. In doing so, it creates new relationships between people, objects, etc — most famous and oft quoted example of this being Friedlander's cloud on a street sign (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971). These relationships are further manipulated by the photographer: shallow depth of field isolates, different lenses make things closer or further than they actually are, angle of capture creates or breaks relationships. Relationships created can also add symbolic meaning — like the American flag in Frank's The American, or rather how Frank photographs it.

On a photograph, I'm sitting on a bench, in a park, next to a woman, my head slightly turn toward her, my mouth slightly opened. Do I know her? Am I talking to her? Our hands seem close, are they touching? Is the guy behind us close or far? Do we know each other? How many people are there in the park? Why are we there?

This is all context, and depending on where the photographer is, what lens he is using, what depth of field he is using, what he decides to put in the frame (as the saying goes, a photograph is as much about what's in it than what's not in it), with all this, he can give different answers—or rather, suggest different possibilities of answers—to these questions.

We know this, it's street photography 101. Great street photography create relationships, play with context, or rather, the ambiguity of context. One of the greatest photographer working with all these possibilities is Garry Winogrand, who keeps suggesting relationships, brilliantly plays with the ambiguity of context, and adds a fantastic physicality to it all (his 1964 World's Fair photograph is a masterpiece, and a masterclass about this). This is what he meant by his famous quote: "How do you make a photograph that's more interesting than what happened? That's really the problem," and also why he compared street photography to a very physical sport in which you have to keep moving very fast in order to capture what you want the way you want it.

To sum up (sorry about the long post), "what happened" is the full context of why I'm sitting on that bench. That belongs to me. That's my privacy ; "what's more interesting" is your photograph of me. If it all stays between you and me, it's all fine, even if I don't know you took the picture. Problem arises from the fact that photos are made to be looked at, and people looking at it are free to make their own context from the contextual ambiguity and new relationships created or suggested by the photographers. There is a clash, a distorsion between the two narrative that comes from the very nature of photography, and that's why the right to privacy goes way beyond just "you're not allowed to take my picture," and also the reason why, if there is a "right to privacy" written down in may law books, nowhere in the world is there a "right to photograph."

And just to be clear. I'm not at all saying that one shouldn't do street photography or always ask for consent — I love great street photography and cherish the books I have by Winogrand, Frank and the other great street photographers precisely because the create ambiguity by creating new relationships which create new narratives which creates new realities, and that's what is so fantastic about street photography well done: it makes us see the world differently. I'm just saying one should be aware of what one is doing when taking a photograph.

Again, sorry about the long post, a bit off subject from the original post specifically about photographing children.

Garry Winogrand
World’s Fair, New York City
1964

​

 

[snusmumriken]

Isn't there a balance to be struck between the public good inherent in photography and the interests of the individual caught in the photograph?

 

[snusmumriken]

My full quote is: "...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."

You are partially right. The information recorded on the film belongs to the photographer, but the information about me being where I am, doing what I was doing, being with who I was, etc., belongs to me.

The two are not the same. That's because image and context are not the same. Or rather, the photographic image creates new contexts that may or may not have anything to do with the actual context of what was captured.

We all know this: photography puts on a single plane a three dimensional scene. In doing so, it creates new relationships between people, objects, etc — most famous and oft quoted example of this being Friedlander's cloud on a street sign (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971). These relationships are further manipulated by the photographer: shallow depth of field isolates, different lenses make things closer or further than they actually are, angle of capture creates or breaks relationships. Relationships created can also add symbolic meaning — like the American flag in Frank's The American, or rather how Frank photographs it.

On a photograph, I'm sitting on a bench, in a park, next to a woman, my head slightly turn toward her, my mouth slightly opened. Do I know her? Am I talking to her? Our hands seem close, are they touching? Is the guy behind us close or far? Do we know each other? How many people are there in the park? Why are we there?

This is all context, and depending on where the photographer is, what lens he is using, what depth of field he is using, what he decides to put in the frame (as the saying goes, a photograph is as much about what's in it than what's not in it), with all this, he can give different answers—or rather, suggest different possibilities of answers—to these questions.

We know this, it's street photography 101. Great street photography create relationships, play with context, or rather, the ambiguity of context. One of the greatest photographer working with all these possibilities is Garry Winogrand, who keeps suggesting relationships, brilliantly plays with the ambiguity of context, and adds a fantastic physicality to it all (his 1964 World's Fair photograph is a masterpiece, and a masterclass about this). This is what he meant by his famous quote: "How do you make a photograph that's more interesting than what happened? That's really the problem," and also why he compared street photography to a very physical sport in which you have to keep moving very fast in order to capture what you want the way you want it.

To sum up (sorry about the long post), "what happened" is the full context of why I'm sitting on that bench. That belongs to me. That's my privacy ; "what's more interesting" is your photograph of me. If it all stays between you and me, it's all fine, even if I don't know you took the picture. Problem arises from the fact that photos are made to be looked at, and people looking at it are free to make their own context from the contextual ambiguity and new relationships created or suggested by the photographers. There is a clash, a distorsion between the two narrative that comes from the very nature of photography, and that's why the right to privacy goes way beyond just "you're not allowed to take my picture," and also the reason why, if there is a "right to privacy" written down in may law books, nowhere in the world is there a "right to photograph."

And just to be clear. I'm not at all saying that one shouldn't do street photography or always ask for consent — I love great street photography and cherish the books I have by Winogrand, Frank and the other great street photographers precisely because the create ambiguity by creating new relationships which create new narratives which creates new realities, and that's what is so fantastic about street photography well done: it makes us see the world differently. I'm just saying one should be aware of what one is doing when taking a photograph.

Again, sorry about the long post, a bit off subject from the original post specifically about photographing children.

Garry Winogrand
World’s Fair, New York City
1964

​

Isn't there a balance to be struck between the public good inherent in photography and the interests of the individual caught in the photograph?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Isn't there a balance to be struck between the public good inherent in photography and the interests of the individual caught in the photograph?

Yes. That's why in many democratic countries the law regarding right to privacy in public places isn't absolute and exceptions are made, for example, for journalistic work and questions of public interest.

In Quebec, for example, I can publish without consent a photograph that shows people in a public place if they are not the main subject of the photo and if the main subject of the photo is of public interest.

You do, however, have to be able to define "'public interest". Not all photos are of public interest just because they are taken in public. Me sitting on a bench in a park, reading a book, is of no public interest per se. If I committed a crime and the police is looking for me, it is. Context is everything.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Yes. That's why in many democratic countries the law regarding right to privacy in public places isn't absolute and exceptions are made, for example, for journalistic work and questions of public interest.

In Quebec, for example, I can publish without consent a photograph that shows people in a public place if they are not the main subject of the photo and if the main subject of the photo is of public interest.

You do, however, have to be able to define "'public interest". Not all photos are of public interest just because they are taken in public. Me sitting on a bench in a park, reading a book, is of no public interest per se. If I committed a crime and the police is looking for me, it is. Context is everything.

Here are a few, more detailed, exceptions from the right to privacy, at least in Quebec:

...your permission is not needed to publish pictures taken of you in these situations:

• You are in front of a historic monument or public place, such as the Eiffel tower, where you are sightseeing along with other tourists.
• You’re a celebrity and it is therefore normal that your picture be taken! Society generally believes that famous people or people in public roles must accept to give up some privacy. This could apply to hockey players, artistic performers and politicians, for example.
• You’re in a picture that is used to inform the public. This type of situation is referred to as the “legitimate interest of the public.” For example, pictures of a witness in a major court case can be published without permission.
• You’re in a crowd. For example, if you are at a hockey game or other public event, such as a student demonstration, pictures of you at these events can be published without your permission.

Your Right to Control Photos and Videos of Yourself | Éducaloi

Photos of you are personal. Except in rare cases, nobody is allowed to use them, unless you give your permission. You have a right to control images of yourself. Therefore, you can refuse to let your image be copied or published. Nobody can publish a picture or video in which you can be...

educaloi.qc.ca

 

[MattKing]

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.

No, I was responding to the generalizations in your post. My arguments are for a nuanced response to the issue, favouring those who are careful and concerned about others - in particular children.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

My arguments are for a nuanced response to the issue, favouring those who are careful and concerned about others

Essential indeed to point out that there is an ethical aspect that works in counterpoint to the legal one when thinking about privacy.

 

[Helge]

Yes. That's why in many democratic countries the law regarding right to privacy in public places isn't absolute and exceptions are made, for example, for journalistic work and questions of public interest.

In Quebec, for example, I can publish without consent a photograph that shows people in a public place if they are not the main subject of the photo and if the main subject of the photo is of public interest.

You do, however, have to be able to define "'public interest". Not all photos are of public interest just because they are taken in public. Me sitting on a bench in a park, reading a book, is of no public interest per se. If I committed a crime and the police is looking for me, it is. Context is everything.

Much more interesting is the rubber band idea of “the subject of the photo”.
Who the heck is to judge who and what the subject a photo is‽
Unless there is an airtight, binary definition will get used and abused to just get rid of people the judicial system doesn’t like.

 

[AgX]

Essential indeed to point out that there is an ethical aspect that works in counterpoint to the legal one when thinking about privacy.

Yes, but the issue is that the ethical aspect is vague, may be seen differently by people, whereas a law is concrete (well, not always, as e.g. with "public interest" and some laws are contradictory), but you get my point.


(Also some people cling to laws. For me as German the typical first question is "is this legal?"...)

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Much more interesting is the rubber band idea of “the subject of the photo”.
Who the heck is to judge who and what the subject a photo is‽
Unless there is an airtight, binary definition will get used and abused to just get rid of people the judicial system doesn’t like.

There are rarely airtight definitions in such laws which deal with concepts because, notably, of the very nature of language. Only general ones. That's precisely why there are courts: to figure out in a particular case if and how the general concept applies.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

the issue is that the ethical aspect is vague, may be seen differently by people

Totally agree. I mentioned it in another thread: I find Bruce Gilden approach to street photography and documentary photography unethical. It's totally my point of view, and can define it and describe (hopefully intelligently) why I think so. But I totally accept the point of view of someone who can define it and describe (hopefully intelligently) a different point of view. And, hopefully, we end up agreeing that the truth lies somewhere in the grey zone between our two points of views.

With children it's somewhat different because here there is more or less a consensus within our society about what is ethical and what isn't. It's the consensus that's important. To me, the fact that most parents — i.e., the consensus — find unacceptable that someone would take a picture of their young children without consent is enough to make it unethical.

 

[faberryman]

One approach is to simply refrain from photographing children as a simple courtesy to the children and their parents.

 

[BrianShaw]

the fact that most parents — i.e., the consensus

Not intending to be argumentative, but what data is this based on? I respect your opinion and your personal decision. Others, though, may feel differently... what then?

Where I live, most automobile drivers don't abide by speed limits and treat stop signs as optional... so they are the consensus but not a behavioral pattern worth emulating or respecting.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not intending to be argumentative, but what data is this based on? I respect your opinion and your personal decision. Others, though, may feel differently... what then?

Where I live, most automobile drivers don't abide by speed limits and treat stop signs as optional... so they are the consensus but not a behavioral pattern worth emulating or respecting.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Not intending to be argumentative, but what data is this based on? I respect your opinion and your personal decision. Others, though, may feel differently... what then?

Where I live, most automobile drivers don't abide by speed limits and treat stop signs as optional... so they are the consensus but not a behavioral pattern worth emulating or respecting.

You confusing ethical and legal matter. Drivers not following the speed limit is a legal matter. The law says 100 km/h max. You go 110 you break the law. No grey area.

Ethical matters are more complex because nothing is written in stone. So if you want to create ethical guidelines for yourself, and I'm perfectly aware that some people might not want to, you have to base yourself on something other than a text of law.

In this case, the probability (a better word than "fact") is that most parents would feel that way. I base that on experience, as a parent, as someone living in a community with other parents, as someone with a pretty good understanding about the society he lives in, and as a photographer. I may be wrong, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption. Good enough to base my own ethical sense about photographing children without consent.

That last part, "without consent," is important. Honestly, is it that difficult to go up to the parent and say "Hi, I'm a photographer, it's really fun to watch your children play, do you mind if I take a few photos?" You'll get a yes or a no.

 

[BrianShaw]

You confusing ethical and legal matter.

Actually, I'm not confusing anything. There is no law, at least in the US, that limits public photography of children, or requires consent in cases of noncommercial usage. So no matter how unethical or wrong someone might think it to be... there really isn't much that can be done short of a baseball bat. I completely understand the other viewpoint but the protests based on "I think you might use these photographs commercially" or "I think you might be a pervert" or "I think I just don't like the idea because I'm entitled my privacy" seem to fall a bit short because they seem rarely based in credible knowledge of the accusation. Unfortunately, false accusations are to easy to make as there are few consequences for those who make such false accusations. That is where personal ethics/beliefs can be easily confounded with law and can lead to the law being used in a spiteful, retaliatory and unlawful way to make someone's life miserable because they didn't comply with an ethics or fear-based expectation. If there really is credible knowledge that one is using public photography in nefarious ways then that is a completely different issue... a legal issue.

One's ethics can validly be based on law rather than consensus or some other source of ethical guidance. Why not?

BTW, I like the recommendation is post #141, but an equally valid approach would be to tell the complainant to go home, lock the door, and close the curtains... or find some way to create their own privacy whilst in public. And, personally, I don't disagree with your recommendation to ask.

 

[MattKing]

There is at least one US based member on Photrio who has posted, in separate circumstances:
1) he is almost always armed with a firearm; and
2) if someone starts photographing his child(ren) without his consent, he is coming for them (or similar words).
I disagree with that, but it is never all that satisfying to be shot, but in the end found to be in the right.

 

[BrianShaw]

There is at least one US based member on Photrio who has posted, in separate circumstances:
1) he is almost always armed with a firearm; and
2) if someone starts photographing his child(ren) without his consent, he is coming for them (or similar words).
I disagree with that, but it is never all that satisfying to be shot, but in the end found to be in the right.

But how does that apply to the discussion at hand, which up until now has been rather rational?

#1 is fine if all applicable firearm laws have been complied with.
#2 is against the law in several ways.

If your point is to avoid getting shot then I understand. Getting shot is no fun, nor is getting hit by a baseball bat. But there will be severe legal repercussions for the shooter/batter. “That person took a picture “ is not a defense. Having ethics beliefs that are illegal does not make them ethical or legal. I think you picked a six-sigma example to make a valid but unlikely point.

 

[BrianShaw]

… but I understand. Down here in the Wild West we generally refrain from “flipping the bird” to crazy drivers who break the law and are unsafe because they all too often shoot a gun in return.

 

[MattKing]

My point is simply that one needs to understand how strong the reactions are from people who observe strangers photographing their children - and yes, to warn people about the dangers of doing so.

 

[BrianShaw]

My point is simply that one needs to understand how strong the reactions are from people who observe strangers photographing their children - and yes, to warn people about the dangers of doing so.

Minor correction… ONE PERSON, not “people”.

Personally, I think that’s a bluff, though. People say the strangest things on photo forums. Doesn’t mean it’s true.