I was out shooting today and tonight. I swapped in some TMAX 400 that I am shooting at 3200 as I continue down my path to master grain. I was shooting with my 50 AIS 1.2 at 1.4 and 2.

I came across a gaggle of kids and people all standing around some multi media art installation in the middle of a new swanky shopping mall/court yard complex place.

I got off about 3 shots as I was zoning in on the dark outside with the bright light coming from inside the glass, shedding a one dimensional and volume giving light on the people and a brilliant mirror like reflection in the glass of those gathered about.

As I go to take my last shot, a close in on one girl who was reaching up as if to touch her own reflection the view finder goes dark. I look up and a man had stood in front on me. I stand there a little perplexed for a moment before he turns around and says "You ask!".

I said, "ask what?"

"You ask to photo my children!"

"Oh really, your children, which one in this gaggle is yours?"

"She is my daughter!" Pointing at the last girl I was going to shoot a portrait of.

"Oh so I can't take a photo of her in a public place. What are you? A fascist?"

"I am protecting her!"

"From what? What clear and present danger do I pose that you have to act like such a brash dick without the courtesy to engage me in polite and civil dialogue. I am white, so there is a good chance that Chinese is not my only language and you can communicate with me."

'SHE IS MY DAUGHTER!"

"So? What danger do I pose with my short lens in close and not hiding? What is different to me than that security camera right there looking down on us, or the other camera over there, or the myriad of people around he with snap shooters and also long telephoto lenses? Why are you being such a dick?" Are you suggesting that I am a paedophile?

"When it is my daughter you ask!"

"Well maybe I would if I knew which one was yours and the situation allowed. But I play the game of odds of decent people. What you failed to do. Don't talk to me about protecting children (he had a strong French accent) why don't you go and worry about your pitiful attempt of colonies in Africa and their subsequent adoption of female circumcision, or go attend another free Polanski rally, you hypocrite."

I walked off muttering something to him in Chinese about the French that drew a few laughs from the other Chinese about - just to really wind him up.

This guy really got on my nerves. I don't understand what people are worried about or protecting about...... it is not as if I am sitting with a long lens in a trench coat and masturbating in the distance. Where do people get off being so rude, petulant and outright dismissive of others when they have a problem with them. What ever happened to benefit of the doubt? And explain to me again how taking a photo can harm someone....? I never got an answer to that question from Brose in the other thread previously on this topic.

If he had acted like 99% of the other people did, he would have had a reassuring chat, a web address or business card and a effing excellent one of a kind wet print dropped off for him.

But no - he had to be a dick. He is probably one of those foreigners that gets so angry in China because things aren't the way they "Should" be and then leaves in frustration in 1 or 2 years after failing to meet the challenge head on.

Richard, you are a very confrontational type person, you should tone it down just a tad mate hahaha. You really should try and defuse the situation instead of jumping straight to "fascist" and ending with insults to his heritage even though he may have had nothing to do with it. Do you blame all Germans for the holocaust?

How about;

"She is my daughter!" Pointing at the last girl I was going to shoot a portrait of.

"Oh, well she's lovely and what she is doing would make a great photograph, would you mind if I take her picture? I'd even give you a copy."

That might have defused a situation and gotten you the shot, and maybe a new friend to boot. At the very least he would have been appreciative and sang your praises as a photographer or forgotten about the incident. Now he's going to go off spreading his version of the story of a "dick" with a camera just doing whatever he wants. They tell 2 friends, they tell 2 friends etc.... Instead you could have had a lovely chat or walked away with the man's respect because you honoured his request not to take a picture.

Put yourself in the other persons shoes mate. Sorry don't have much sympathy for you given the way you've told your side of the story.

Scott

No sympathy here either... The man had the right to ask why you were taking a photo of his child. And if he is indeed French it is against the law in France to take people's photo without their consent which could explain his reaction. As for calling people "Fascist" right off the bat, not a very good way to start off a constructive conversation in my opinion... I'm French by the way... would love to hear the nice things you have to say about the French... :))

Try to take pictures of children here in Germany without asking for permission before. When the parents will notice it you will have a LOT of trouble, no doubt.

The same applies to taking pictures from adults without asking, btw!

You far to aggressive Richard! Try to understand him! I case you publish the picture of that child everybody can see and with this you violate the right of personality of a non adult! Further more some of the children pictures later can be found on some ominous russian page for pedophiles! So his worries i can accept and understand! Even you are a serious photographer and do not meant to be harm with your photos some people feel quite unwell for such things. If i see you snap my daughter and i know you have her on film i will take this film away from you!
Look, according to the german law it is not allowed without permission from the person to photograph the person. The punishment is very high!

As i stay in China i experience many time such situation. Not from the chinese but from other foreigners who lives there! And i approach them very careful and try to calm down the situation! I respect that much and in China there are many people who like to get photographed:-)

Richard do not take such things too much in heart! Calm and turn away and try another one!:-))))

OH, BTW from 22.11.09 on for two weeks if you see another foreigner with heavy gear in Beijing it could be me:-)

Robert

even if the man had been overreacting, as in my opinion he did not, your choice of insulting language disqualifies your argument, sorry Richard...

Hi Richard,

if it is an art form to photograph people who don't want to get photographed you may move to Hollywood and start in the candid celebrity shot industry. Can't understand the motivation behind it, if it is not about the documentation of historically important scenes. And what has your incident to do with fascism?

/Stephan

The point isn't about whether I can or can't shoot (I can). It is how he refused to treat me with any respect and ask me what is up while giving me the benefit of the doubt. Instead he goes and walks in front of me like a child and blocks my camera and I have to stop and look up to see what is going on.

I never have any confrontation with people and this is with people who often I need to speak to in a language which is not my own. My issue is how he treated and reacted to me as if I was some kind of vermin or menace to society.

It's all very well to say diffuse the situation - but most people, 99% in the case of those that are confused or think they should object, they ask "what are you doing?" To which they are either receptive and go with the flow - or you realise that you can't and you move on with a smile and a nod.

It is not nice to be chastised in front of other people (foreign and Chinese) and tacitly suggested that I am some kind of predator (I am not) and that I have broken some civil law (I did not) or some social law (I did not).

It is not on!

@ Louise

Henri Cartier Bresson! ;-) And bread and coffee and those backed sandwich things with an egg on top..... and Boule!

@ Scott

If a society is represented by it's govt an that govt thinks that Polanski is a swell bloke... then.... what other conclusion can I come to? 40 Odd years he has been protected by successive govt's voted in by successive generations of peoples. My comment is fair.

@ Robert

Et al fascism and the law. I can't believe that people in a western society in a continent with such history are OK with laws that prohibit what people can freely do in public and in general. Especially when they don't hurt other people. It is a form of mind control and people's reactions "take film away" is completely unjustified and over the top.

I seem to remember recently that a Swedish or some such politician was stabbed 78 times in a shopping centre while people watched and then the person ran away. I have never stabbed someone but 78 times must take some effort. And to then run away? What are people doing? Standing there watching - not trying to help or get in the way? But would get involved if a photographer showed up?

There is a reason that certain societies evolve and when faced with events out of their control - they force the plane into the ground as they won't stand for having someone else control and dictate their reality and destiny to them. And other societies - well they make all manner of silly laws about pointless and harmless activities while people get kidnapped and locked in dungeons and rapped by their father or neighbour for many years on end. And when someone is getting stabbed 78 times, they stand there watching and then ready to make a new law about it....

All I am saying is that if this is the way a person reacts to this, harmless behaviour in contrast to the complete lack of action on more serious and realistic problems that plague our planet or societies - then what hope is their for free and open society in the future where each person has the liberty to do what they want for themselves and determine their own lives without being held back or controlled by the meddling and interference of others?

That is what I mean by fascism. An authoritarian approach to govt and management of people.......it is always a danger with societies that are based on civil law and not common law - hence why UK, Australia and USA have never been threatened by most of the BS of the 20th century.

@ Robert 2

Excellent!! If you want to go out to the massive camera market and look at old, new, antique, large, small, second hand camera's let me know. And/or a hutong tour for shooting. I did one today, got completely lost in all the side streets and winding maze that is the Hutongs in Dong Si district.

Robert,


well here it was a single person, who stated for himself and his daughter not to get photographed and no authority was involved, correct?

/Stephan

Correct. And I obliged and lowered the camera and did not take any more shots.

I am extrapolating here - and at the risk of being made out as a fool as you rightly peel this onion in a Socratic manner - my (albeit emotionally charged) point is that he was bread in a society or place that he felt he had the right to tell others what they can and can't do. How does such a culture evolve? And what is the general term for it? Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be like one of those Whackos that used all manner of inaccurate and false claims against George W because they disliked him personally.

He had two choices. Ignore me or engage me in conversation. He did what? He walked in front of me like a child whose sibling changed the TV channel and then loudly chastised me in front of other complete strangers as if it was OK to lecture someone else and dictate what they can and can't do as a matter of unchallenged fact.

I think its time to get your sniper lens out Richard....... Times are changing and photographing children in public is considered just as bad as selling them drugs these days.

Its time to buy a helmet :-)

Richard I think you are bound to realise that whatever the wrongs and rights of this it
was bound to create a strong reaction here in the forum.

Perhaps it might be better (and I am NOT patronising) just to take time out on this and
reflect upon the wiser words that have prevailed above. :))

True, but it is everybody's right to decide wether he wants to be photographed or not! What is if the photographer really is one of those and the photographed one had some bad experience? Look, i by my self get many times angry because some behave of the people when i click them. But it is there right of there privacy and only that they move in public does not mean everybody can record them! I will not make politics about society but about the right and i mean the right of each single person. I will be asked before somebody make a picture of me! I always do so! I found pictures of my person on a chinese homepage in a block who chinese have there fun about foreigners. I complained to the police station and they found that fellow who make a picture with his cell phone from me as i stayed on my corner waiting for a street scene. He get punished because this violates my rights! Even China has a law for this! But as long nobody complain all seems legal! But when we speak about children who not can make a different and which are not knowing such things i would be very careful special in China! I needed to go many times to the police because i click people and they complain. Many times and also for other reason the police delete my pictures!
Before i go to India i contact the embassy and asked about special regulations or a law about photographers. And they exists! The good thing in India is that the people have other problems than car a guy like me! Anyway, i always ask and inside some private or government property i buy a photo permission! When i go to remote villages like yesterday with a model i got a permission. When i click the people there i ask before i start making pictures. It is always an advantage to have a local beside who can talk and help.
Another experience i make in China (6 and a half year i live there) with foreigners who stay long time there or live there and being married, they think they are better Chinese as the Chinese one and still think its a nation full of idiots and a 3th world country. But let me tell you, i never saw such developed and high technical cities like in China and i travel now since 16 years around the world!
No offense meaning Richard but there is an old saying my colleagues and i have, or better you remember this A4 paper which explains when you will recognize that you are to long in China!:-)))))))

So take it easy Richard! You a good photographer and such things you should really not care much:-)

Robert

I thought I remember another thread..


English is not my language, but.. is calling somebody a dick polite? Ok, I know several people named Dick..(or short for the real name)

Some here says photographing people in public is not legal. I doubt it. I think those rules are quite similar in all countries. You can photograph anyone involved in a public event. The photo can be used in editorial work, probably also artistic (not sure about that), but not in advertising without permission. There would be some limitations if the shot showed the person in some kind of situation that put the person in a bad light. Nothing of these limitations would normally apply if the person is not recognizable.

Richard, step down, be polite. It helps! I've photographed a lot of people, in many countries. Not tried to post anything here though. The only time I ran into some kind of problem was when I photographed the headquarters of the army in Jakarta.. Too tired to think.. I realized something was wrong when I felt that machine gun in my ribs..
Even that went ok, I was polite, who's not with a machine gun involved..
All the best, Lars

If it has happened in Romania in one second you'll have 20 children around you begging to make them photos!Here it is the result: http://1x.com/photos/member/2079/4882/

Like in India:-)

Robert

Nota bene,that was in 1980!Times changed a little!!!

I agree, it was actually you Robert who overreacted.
This said, I can understand your reaction. It is so frustrating to be confronted with such overly zealous right-conscious squareheads when your intentions are honest and good. But such reactions are something we have to learn to live with.
Thus both of you have acted wrong. He should have been more polite and you should have made yourself clear: showing him the shots on LCD, identify yourself, give him a business card etc. In such situations it's better to be eccentric (but not angry): tell him tales about the beauty of his daughter, fall to your knees, beg, whatever. Make sure you're just an innocent madman, not press or a predator (whichever the worse :)). His attitude wasn't friendly but your reaction was either not really suitable to defuse the situation.
Of course, your shot was spoiled... nothing will help that.

I'm sympathetic with your frustration at the way you were treated, Richard. 100% with you there. Don't need to mention what it's like here in the land of the free......
If I have to say something, your reaction wasn't precisely the best, but I guess I could have reacted the way you did, more out of frustration than my honor for being treated like a predator...sometimes people's stupidity makes me a little mad.
I guess "the right thing to do" would have been what Balasz suggested: defuse the situation. Easier said than done, of course
d

Sorry mate still doesn't fly with me. I live in a country that has a seal hunt, does that make me a baby seal killer? Or an exterminator of Native Americans? Gonna paint me with the brush of my ancestors? Heck you have no idea how I vote, doesn't mean the government I want is in power.

Richard, just food for thought, you live in China right? What if that child was the daughter of a Polit-Bureau member? Or the father was a member of the Polit-Bureau, what would your status be today? Be careful who your uttering slanderous insults to. Regardless of where in the world you are it could put you in jailed, sued, given a black eye or (god forbid) shot. People are put down for much smaller things in this world.

All we're saying Richard is to slow down. Maybe the law is on your side (I don't know China law), but taking photos of peoples children without parental permission also has an ethical and moral side to it. People are protective of their children, that is human nature. It is bred into us. You ran into a daddy bear, be thankful you missed the mama bear, she can be very nasty.

Next time, and there will be, just swallow your pride and either ask permission or quietly leave the situation. Your playing with fire being confrontational, you don't know who your facing.

Just my advice, take it for what it's worth.

Scott

I agree. Anyone who has young children (especially these days) will invariably react to someone pointing a camera directly at them without having first sought permission. It isn't a question of whether it's legal or not to take the shot, it's a question of respecting other people and appreciating the fact that a degree of paranoia these days is probably a good thing, especially where children are concerned.

This guy doesn't sound like a fascist or a 'dick'. He sounds like a regular guy trying to protect his daughter.

This guy has just the right to accept or not that you take images of her daughter. What's wrong with that ? You can do many other photos of other people.
And straight you treated him as a fascist...obviously too rude.


Wow.... And what about aborigines in Australia ? And what about the Cultural Revolution in China etc...You can find historical flaws in every country.
So in your opinion, all the people are responsible of what happened in their countries before ?
Richard, this is generalization, and this had nothing to do with the "problem" you had with this guy.

Richard, I assume you have no children of your own. I have never heard you speak of any. My wife has a saying that if you get near her child in a way she doesn't like, her "fangs come out". As a father of a boy (who is now a man), I can remember the feeling that she references in that saying very clearly. You mess with my kid you are messing with me!! This father's reaction is, for him, quite normal. Understand that you have no idea what he and his family have been through in the day, months, years leading up to your encounter. As much as you "want" to be right in this situation, I feel you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the father. If a father or mother reacted to me that way in a similar circumstance I would think that I would react with apology and withdrawal not with argument. For me the rights of parents are paramount to almost anything...knowing full well that some will say that leads to chances of abuse by the very same parents.

I'm sure Richard was just cursing, c'mon! he didn't mean literally what he said....of course, no one thinks ALL germans are nazis, ALL french...whatever to the colonies, ANY person who offends me has a dick face (literally), though THAT would make a great photo in humor or fine art nude or creative edit?? ;)

Yeah, but it's a recent European and US habit to bring up more and more historical flaws in our own countries' history till the extent of self-hate, and at the same times find excuses for other countries flaws and crimes they've committed against us (and are still proud of it).
Fascist, Nazi, racist - these words have been hurled ad nauseam at anyone with an annoying opinion and by now they've become so commonplace that using them, especially in a situation like this, makes the user himself ridiculous. Besides, it's hard to believe the guy in question was a supporter of Mussolini...
Sorry, that's way OFF, it just came to my mind.

Seriously, I understand the parents, but as with many things today, there is a little bit of paranoia....plus, one thing is to go and say 'Hey dude, what's the deal with the camera pointed at my daughter?" in a polite way. If richard's reaction was rude, the father, mother or whatever should have approached him in a firm, although polite way too!! He doesn't have the right to start out full force....

people come before pictures. what is the image worth if it made bad feelings?
through photography we can make wonderful contact with people and create friendships.. i see no reason to fight
it is true that in western countries people are less open for photography but i find that with good human contact all doors open even in the closed societies.
even in the land of free:)
it is a matter of approach and sincerity and explaining why you capture the images. sometimes you get a nice refusal but mostly people are willing.
you should have the right reason though :)

Streephers have to be tactful with people not to seem invasive. Attitude is very important when shooting in the streets especially when we live in a time where there is already a lot of suspiction on street photographers and a perception that anyone who points a camera at a stranger is up to no good. If we don't want photographers on the street to be stared like criminals we have to build confindence into people that a camera can't do any harm. We got to be patient, and just use the right words to explain what we are doing. After all our 'subjects' are people, and, like many great photographers said, we gotta love them, try to understand and read them, if we want to take good pictures.

I see this all the time. It manifests itself as either a quiet ability to get things done - or a loud complaint at how everything is wrong.....

I checked and it is OK to photograph people outside. It is not OK to ridicule people. So i your situation it would have been how the photo was used - not that it was taken.

And I always speak to people. It is not often possible to do so before the shot - so it is done after the shot. Because doing so first would ruin the setting or in this case, whom do I ask? Black kid, yellow kid, white kid, all manner of people - a truly crowded scene.

While I will have to agree to disagree with you on the merits of public vs private. My point I am trying to make is that there are a lot of actually socially bad behaviour that people engage in. Be it spitting, talking too loud on a mobile, avoiding taxes, cheating on their wives, fathers not spending time with their children, teenage pregnancy, drug pushers, etc. Why single out a well dressed man, with an expensive manual film camera with a short lens? Why single that person out for confrontational behaviour right off the bat and not confront the many other vices in our society - as opposed to "turning a blind eye"?

Happened to me too with an army base here.. I was shooting the sign out the front of a adjoining business - guard came running out and grabbed my arm. Showed him the photo (there was none - it was of the next businesses over) and he was all cool.

vis-a-vis polite. It is also not polite to when amongst others that aren't familiar with western culture - to go and castigate me so that others form the notion through the fog of the language barrier that I had touched the girl? Felt her up or did some other socially abhorrent act...... I had to act quick and firm to protect my status. No time for Hans Blix style tip toeing....

Yes. Hind sight is wonderful thing.. that too and experience. I wasn't angry for missing the shot. There will be others. I was angry for his over the top reaction that suggests to everyone out there, close up and 20 metres away that I am some kind of deviant or crook or that I did something to justify that kind of reaction...... I had to challenge.

Good advice. I don't go looking for trouble. And I still don't see how a photo can harm or cause harm to anyone. Child, adult or geriatric. That being said, if someone takes the fake moral high ground and I swallow my pride, then I walk away with people thinking that I am a crook and this man does it again to the next person.

The irony is, is that there were lots of people there snapping pictures and there are always a few local photogs in this place with what looks like 70-200 zooms on.

I am a white person, so the chances that I speak English are high and I am otherwise no different to the other people about shooting - except that I focused on one moment amid the scrum that was ensuing.

Re the seal hunt, nothing wrong with hunting seals, I don't think people would assume that there is. Whether or not you personally voted/condoned it, well of course I don't know. But if he is going to assume that every photographer is some kind of beast, then I can assume that every...... Modus Ponens.

Protect? From what?

How was I causing harm or suggesting harm would be caused? Why me and not the others about? More harm was done to the child by living in Beijing with the pollution that my shooting one frame of silver halide in her direction.

True. I at that stage just wanted to highlight his hypocrisy. Even if he isn't/wasn't/didn't neither I am of all those famous child murders and molesters who were also photogs.... now their names escape me right now.......apart from Polanski. Monkey see, monkey do.

It already has. In parts of Sydney now, Madonna's go about with these HUGE all terrain vehicle/dine buggy style strollers on the narrow city side walks and expect everyone to get out of their way, step into the gutter or otherwise just go with the parting of the pedestrian seas so they - the precious one - can walk on through without obstruction It got to the point that the papers started writing about it and people would not get out of their way.

The problem is similar to this one. While the mother is wrong and selfish for purchasing such an over the top and excessive pram and expecting others to move, so are the people for getting in the way. What is needed is a return to basic human values. Just because he is a parent or someone is a parent, that does not give them the right to be a dick and does not entitle them or their bundle of joy to any more rights or freedoms than the rest of us.

What if one never gets the chance to be sincere or approach and be open as they normally are. As I said in my original post. Sometime you can't ask first (so many kids up front - so many people out back) that you play the game of benefit of the doubt and normal people reaction.

but then your reaction when confronted needs to be sincere,,,,
you had your chances after
i do not judge. i understand how easy it is for things to get ugly in a short time,,,,, and i had my one bad experience
but think, your excuse is that he started...

I have to say i agree with most here. I think you are being way too aggressive, the way you responded to him was like somebody spitting acid. I'm not saying that what the other did was right, he was pretty mean himself. But it seems the only thing he demanded was that you asked for permission before taking a photo of his daughter, he did it in a mean way but that's the only thing he said. On the other hand you blurted all this anger which in my mind is not justifiable by his mean demand. You called him names, you aggressively insulted him calling him a "dick", etc...

Sorry Richard, I don't believe in violence and even more, i think you didn't even end up in a fight because he didn't want to push it. If it had replied as aggressive as you had you would've both probably ended up in jail for disturbing the peace. If you did that to some people I know you would probably need a new nose and denture now and that's why I don't believe the way you replied would lead to anything good. I think there were a thousand ways to reply in a firm and non-aggressive way. It was your "responsibility" to put the guy in his place not to feed his anger.

I always remember what Gandhi said whenever I feel I'm about to lose my temper: "eye for and eye and we'll all end up blind"

I guess you are referring to the murder of Anna Lindh, Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, in 2003. She was attacked and stabbed, mainly in the abdomen, in a clothing store at a large shopping centre. I don't recall it being 78 stabs though. The attack was over in less than a minute, it was inside a smaller clothing store with few people in it. The offender was challenged and hit by Anna Lindhs friend making the man let go of Anna and run away through the shopping center. The stab in the abdomen was lethal, damaging the liver and main arteries and Anna died at the hospital after over 12 hours of surgery.

I think people got involved in a way they had time to at the incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Lindh

78 was just an expression of multiples... I do stand corrected on that. I read about it in 3 news services at the time and they all played the same line (not AP reprints) that everyone watched and the offender completed his stabbing unchallenged and then escaped......it made news in Australia because no one could believe that members of the public could be so selfish and weak when another is in need...

@Nicolas

You speak a truism. I may have let it escalate if he had. I do have a problem with people being rude and disrespectful to others. Though to have what you expect to be a more worldly and apparently educated person, behaving like some animal in a zoo - it is shocking and catches one (me) off guard.

When I photograph police here, I have an expectation of the likely outcomes and plan and hedge for them and conduct myself accordingly. I did the same here.

I still can't believe how he reacted to a photo being taken. Yet this same man would not react to Dafur or Rwanda or anything else.... just so hypocritical..... Like most of society. Myself included.

Richard, please, do not judge individuals from the government of their Country. I, for one, do not feel represented at all by the current Italian government. ;)

Anyhow, there are a few rules to minimize the risks of things getting out of hand and being attacked (or even seriously harmed), when confronted by people who are worried and angry at the same time (even if just because they feel at risk for themselves and their dear ones).

Never show your anger or frustration.

Tone down the conversation.

Step back, so that you are at always at a safe distance (just enough not to be hit, but not too far), facing the person while talking and, if you are seated, stand up.

Smile (if the situation allows), apologize, try to calmly explain, try to reassure the person who is confronting you.

Show verbal and non verbal signs of understanding and empathy for the concerns of the person who is confronting you.

Never raise your voice.

Avoid insulting people (even if they are insulting you) and avoid words or expressions that sound similar to rude remarks (i.e., back off could be mistaken for f*** off).

Try to explain calmly and in the simplest terms what you are doing and why.

If all goes wrong prepare to defend yourself anyhow and at the same time move slowly and steadily towards an escape route in case you are attacked.

I have been confronted and verbally abused at work countless times by all sorts of angry people from the educated and usually well behaved worried well, to manipulating drug addicts or mentally ill.

I have nearly always been able to quickly get in control, calm down people, even very angry ones (and much bigger than me), and restore a more normal and polite human interaction.

Nonetheless, I have been hit a couple of times (by people who were confused). Once I was also chased once by a mentally unstable nasty piece of work who after harming himself and terrorizing a number of people around in the hospital started running towards me with a pair of scissors in his hands while screaming his head off. Luckily, I managed to hide behind a door. Eventually, the guy was arrested!

So you can never tell how the situation might unfold.

It is indeed a shame that nowadays there is so much concern about paedophiles that it has become difficult even to smile at a child.

People have become so paranoid and concerned that a few years ago a paediatrician was attacked by some people who thought that paediatrician meant paedophile!

What sort of world are we living in. Two women in thier 60's were in trouble with the police a couple of years ago for taking pictures of a childrens playground. At the time there were no children at the playground or anywhere near it. I can understand a parent being upset if the child is in a pool or on a beach just wearing pants or a swimsuit, but honestly what harm is caused by photographing people. In the uk you cannot photograph children at a sports day, a pantomime, musical, or any advent at all. The way things are today is terrible. My children used to talk to people in the park when feeding ducks, at the supermarket, out walking, now you dare not even look at a child in this country for people thinking you are a wierdo. Geting back to Richards comment, I disagree with the man just standing in front of your camera as I find that just down right rude. He could have asked you politely what you were photographing. Having said that maybe calling him a dick was not the best thing to do. If ever I photograph a a person or people, and they approch me i always tell them what I am trying to achieve and show them the image on screen. I also offer to send them the image or print them a copy free of charge. I have been stopped about 9 times in one day at Canary Wharf and around Docklands while carrying 2 cameras, one with a 70 - 200 and the othe 10 - 20mm. The security guards asked me what I was taking shots of and when I let them view them it was ok. My advice is treat everyone how you would expect to be treated and 99% of the time things work out ok.


Nicely worded Marcello.......................Kind Regards Richard

Good advice.

I do need to control my temper. Maybe give Bob's emotion free techniques a try. Usually and I mean 99% of the time people are cool, or they just wave you off - so you move on. No harm to anyone.

What I couldn't do those is apologise - because I have done nothing wrong. I could express regret that he doesn't understand - but that's it.

I believe the man had the right to do so....You can't go on photographing everyone just because they are in public....I'd like to see you come here in Greece and start shooting street photography.....I bet you'll end up with a black eye at the end of the day.

I really did not get how this guys is the biggest hypocritical fascist you met based on your post.....sorry.

You're obviously a clever guy, so please don't pretend not to understand what I'm saying.


Nobody has implied that you were 'causing harm' or even suggesting as much. What you are apparently refusing to accept is the fact that people, no matter where they are in the world, are naturally protective of their children, particularly in a society where pointing a camera at a child is no longer automatically considered to be an innocent act. I actually don't think you behaved responsibly (from what I know, at least) and had you been doing the same thing here in Britain (blatantly photographing children without at least granting someone the courtesy of an explanation), you can be assured that many parents would've reacted similarly.

.
Completely irrelevant.

You haven't at any point tried to understand this parent's perspective here, you've just made yourself the victim and him a 'fascist hypocrite', simply because he behaved instinctively and probably justifiably. Furthermore, the tenuous references to the domestic policies of your oppo's native country, which were presumably an attempt to justify the rather ambitious 'hypocrisy' label, only serve to confirm (to me at least) that you were seeking conflict, not trying to avoid it.

As others here have said, if the situation did unfold as you described it, then it's you who appears to be in the wrong, not the other dude. If we as photographers are to continue to benefit from our freedoms in an increasingly paranoid society, we need to be polite, transparent as to our motives and diplomatic when we are confronted.

Ultimately, that's kinda my point; WE are the ones who need to adapt to an understandably less tolerant society, not the other way around.

Faddoush are you saying then that Greek people are violent, and what is wrong with street photography...???

I am saying that people like their privacy and don't like people shooting them without permission.

I believe that as you have the right to go out shooting, others also have the right to refuse to be in your shot, nothing fascist about that. Not accepting that is actually fascist ;)

When you have nothing to shoot....shoot yourself!!

Hey Richard its life, get over it, as you have no broken bones, your camera is still intact,you are still able to take photos. This was a confrontation not the end of the world and from what I am hearing it could have been avoided by simply being understanding and striking up a decent conversation with the father. Put your camera down and talk to the guy if it is possible. Even animals (we too are animals) protect their young from what they think is danger. Most folks are protective of their young and some overly protective. Just my 2 cents and stay cool as it is bad for your health to get so upset, blood pressure, heart etc will

This reminds me of an event with my dad before he passed. He used to take his dog for a walk in a local park and Henry - a Fox Terrier - was crazy for any and all games involving a tennis ball. Kids were willing victims to his needs. Dad would always shoo the kids away when they came close out of a morbid fear that if he was alone with a kid and the dog on one side of the park - in plain view of all - somehow he would get accused of being a molester....

Also where and how did the paedophile to photographer link come from? I get it with priests and boarding schools and dirty uncle harry or the step dad left alone. But what was the historic event that caused all photogs to get lumped into the same genre as the afore mentioned and well documented cases..?

Ah.. yes I can. It is public - it is a place for all. I can look, smell and shoot. Just like others can smoke, spit and scratch or wear ugly clothes.....where is the line drawn on public spaces. Why are you allowed to smoke or sing or dance but I can't shoot? It is contradictory.

Besides my initial rant was not about the right to shoot. It was about how - because I shoot - I am treated with less respect than a person who was maybe smoking near to him or chewing gum loud or honking their horn or any number of other things that people do and we just PUT UP WITH IT because they have a right to do those things in public - no matter how annoying or offensive we may think they are. Why single me out in such a way? Why single the shooter out?

And I agree....just as you have the right to do so, so does HE!!! He had the right to refuse you taking his child's photo....why is that hard for you to accept?

I bet somewhere on the nets HE too has made a thread about some "dick, Fascist" that was taking photos of his child....

Because some people have some half baked insecurity - then why should my liberty be trashed? I would not be proud that the UK is less restrictive than China of all places. :-s


Valid point. However by embracing this mind set lock, stock and barrel, we are feeding the others belief that they are right or justified.

A few years ago, after putting up with fireworks 24 hours a day for Chinese New years, I had a Neighbour complain that at 2PM my XMAS lunch was too rowdy. This neighbour continued to be a pest. Until one day - again on a weekend in the day she came with the police to complain that my music was not loud. Now when she arrived I was literally out the door as well. The police man said that it wasn't loud and that he was here to help ensure neighbourly harmony. So what did I do?

I closed the door and continued to play the music for the next 2 hours and then went out. Could I have just let it be and left? Of course. But then the lady would believe that the cause and effect was due to her actions - when it was just coincidence. So the signal that I sent (Signalling being a major topic in Nash game theory) was that she has and will never have any control over what I am doing when I am not breaking a civil or social law and she just for whatever reason dislikes me.

Now if we bend over and apologise when we don't need to - then we are fermenting their beliefs.

It is a bit like also when a western person gets captured in the mid east and is put on TV and they say all these bad things about their home country and how bad they are and how good the jihad is. We in the west all know that the guy is under duress. The problem is, is that the rest of the mid east also know that our guy is under duress and with a bit of duress he sings like a canary because he lacks any hard internal self belief in his cause and that if one of their guys was captured by us - they'd say nothing until water boarded in gitmo - if then even. So we have just helped perpetuate their belief that white westerners are soft and cowardly. There by emboldening them to go off and capture more sods to put in front of their handycam.

The point I hope I am making is that intents are fine but strategies have to think about the long term goal and consequences of ones actions - especially when it involves acquiescence.

He has every right of course. But does that entitle him to behave rudely and belligerently to me?

If someone is smoking near you, do you go up and swat the butt out of their lips? No you ask them if they would mind smoking somewhere else. Again what part of my white and normal appearance led him to believe that verbal communication was not an option?

6 weeks to go until my laptop less 8 week holiday comes about...... But I have been in a grumpy mood for the past 3 weeks as people on my 1X hat list would have noticed from my "Status".

Mal always seems to make me turn un grumpy for a few moments.......

Well then, Mal needs to jump in here and tweak you a tad, LOL. Really Richard stress is not good so lighten up and think about all of the good things in life! will

To even validate that question, let alone for it to justify a response, you'd first have to demonstrate that people's insecurities were in fact unjustified, or "half-baked". I happen to think that the guy's reaction was perfectly understandable.


You seem to be somewhat obsessed with the notion that people's actions should be associated with their country of origin. Your story reflected something which happened 'in' China, but I seem to recall you mentioning that it was in fact a French-sounding person who took exception to you photographing his child. This might've happened in any country in the world (parents in Italy, for example, are notoriously protective of their children where photogaphy is concerned) and I'm afraid you're wide of the mark in your attempts to dismiss a parent's natural desire to protect with something you consider to be "restrictive" behaviour.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that it's in any way 'wrong' for a parent to confront a photographer who is so blatantly taking pictures of their child without permission. As I've already said, society has understandably become a fair bit more paranoid than it was 20 years ago and it's up to us to accomodate that fact when we're out with our cameras.

No it doesn't....but what can you really do about it?

Paranoid about what?

Drugs, sex, internet, etc... there are vices and dangers everywhere. Where are these dangerous perople or historical events surrounding a photographer or shooting in general. Just because it is a child doesn't mean that the behaviour is any way more justifiable. Where is the root or what was/is the root cause?

I am not debating that last point, I am genuinely asking as I don't understand the genesis of it.

Well not tacitly condone his behaviour. I accept that I was aggressive. As a reaction to an unjustified provocation. I am still trying to understand where his behaviour came from as I was in no way provocative... I took a photo. What gives? Where is the harm?

I get the genesis of most road rage attacks - someone was cut off or almost killed by dangerous driving. I get the genesis of two drunk or otherwise males courting a female. I get the genesis of greed that leads to white collar crime and the like.

Where is the genesis of a man with a camera that drives such insane behaviour from someone? If I understood then maybe I could answer the question about "What to do about it".

But I honestly don't.

Rich is always grumpy, I much prefer him grumpy, I start to worry about him when he is happy and chirpy!

I'm reminded of a time when I was in my local supermarket. I was ambling down the isles minding my own business, when I noticed at the end of the Isle a young girl, I guess about 4 years old (no parent in site). She fell over some boxes that the shelf filler had left on the floor. She started yelling and crying, a passer by (female) bent down to comfort the child in the way that I think we all would. I heard from over my shoulder "Leave her alone" at high volume, as this distressed young mother (I assume mother) ran past me. She proceeded to scold and chastise this lady that was trying to help the young girl out. I guess the moral of the story is steer well clear of young kids but this saddens me greatly to think that societies paranoia has reduced us to act this way.

But what is the genesis of this paranoia? I was thinking today, if I was a female photog would the reaction have been the same?

I still don't get what it is... is it paedophilia? Then what event(s) occurred to drive this? Did a man/woman stick a lens into a place where he shouldn't have gone? Age of consent and all that not withstanding....

Yep, and when you don't help than the victims blame the world for being so cruel and indifferent and not helping.

A friend of mine, a Benedictine monk, served as a guest priest in a Bristol parish. One morning he saw an adolescent girl crawling home, totally drunk. He helped her up, guided her for a while as she was still too drunk to walk, eventually gave her a few pounds for a taxi. After a few days guess what happened: he was called by the police for molesting a minor and lewd behaviour. His career in the church was ruined after this, he almost lost his priesthood too. Of course he was kicked out of British territory regardless the facts. Moral is: he should have let her suffocate in her own vomit. Everyone would be happy now.

very good question. My guess is that the reaction would have been different. Maybe it was the death metal outfit you were wearing with the "baby eater" tee shirt?...

The only thing weird on me was the fact that I was wearing shorts due to an unhealthy love of the cold from growing up near Stroud (Cotsworlds) as a kid - while everyone else was wrapped in 20 layers of clothes. However my wife by my side I'd have thought would have been a give away.......of something...... fully matured heterosexuality?

Here in New England, the presumption--not the law--among parents is that men who photograph children on the playground are pedophiles and are planning to post their children's pictures on pedophile websites, for other pedophiles to abuse.

How do you abuse a photo? And if you do abuse a photo - how does that harm a person? Do they get upset because the gloss was scratched?

That is like saying that we shouldn't have the internet because people will look at child porn. Or we should ban bit torrent and MP3 because people will pirate music..... how is a technology that has a couple of centuries of proven practical use so suddenly co opted like this? Are there known cases of children who were shot in public and then their photos abused?

Again not debating - just enquiring....

So the presumption doesn't stand for women? Even though there are quite a few known cases of foetal theft.....

It is indeed sad the place we have gone (the whole world) Kindness is even looked down on. Where do we go from here? What in the hell would have happened if you had picked her up Mal (bad scene I fear) It is a touch me not society world wide (probably less so in China than anywhere else) The folks I met there were some of the friendliest I have ever seen.

Yeap, odd that doing nothing seems the correct thing to do.


In hind sight I was very pleased not to have been next to the child in distress, I think I would have acted instinctively and did as the other woman did.

People here are very cool with being photographed. The beggars and disabled people are not - but normal folk like it. They go crazy if you stop and chat with them in Mandarin - or a favourite topic of mine - talk about how their fluffy and arrogant Pekingese reminds me of my fluffy and arrogant Pekingese!

... The paedophilia stuff is somewhat understandable since lots of news have reported photo traffic involving paedophil/porn networks since globalization of internet.

Apart from that I think that people are more or less consciously concerned by the control of their image and that of their beloved relatives. Being shot by an unknown involves loss of control (in that way it is way different than an annoying behaviour such as speaking loudly in mobile phone). This also explains why people are less bothered by security cams or "official" photographers because the final purpose is identifiable - which does not mean that this purpose can't be deviated. More generally people are keen to "give" sthg of their own when they are able to identify and aknowledge the purpose of it. e.g. you give money to a relief organization or homeless people, but not to anybody on the street.

Could be different yes... and if you have had a child with you it could have been different as well - you would have looked as a dad also, presumably sharing the same concerns.

But why would one or why would one assume that they can control the photons that bounce off of their body.....who knows where a photog could be. So we have established one cause of possible genesis. The only problem though is that this man made no effort to divine who I was or what I was doing....... not sure how it is related but I keep thinking of kids that go and sit on santa's lap for a photo......

Richard,
Don't focus too much on this particular man's attitude for this particular situation. To many factors might be involved e.g. the guy was a tourist in a place he was not familiar, he might have felt a little more unsecured than if it was at a playground right near his house (just as an example). You may just have fed him with signals/stimuli of what he was unconsciously concerned at that moment hence putting him in an agressive posture. When you're blocked in the traffic you may get totally upset by an old innocent women driving slowly and hesitantly just because she sorts out to find her way.

People's motives, I guess. It's fair to say that there are a lot of people out there with particularly unsavoury motives where children are concerned and while most rational people instinctlively know the difference between a skulking, cowardly pervert and a confident, conspicuous photographer (in shorts...) going about his business, it's no longer socially acceptable to take pictures of children without at least making your intentions known. I'm not saying that this is healthy or in any way ideal, but it's certainly understandable; nobody wants an image of their child to end up sating the deprived sexual cravings of some twisted mind and these days, sadly, it's a distinct possibility.

As an aside, if you were to ask a random group of parents anywhere how they'd react if they saw a guy with a camera singling out their child and attempting to photograph them, I think you'd be genuinely surprised by the negative response. Sure, it's generally accepted that people will take photos at football games, school plays and other organised events, but even then you often need specific permission to do so. When my 10 year-old daughter appeared in her school Nativity play last year, I had to 'apply' for permission to wield a camera at the event, ffs.


People's hostile reactions to what would once have been considered a harmless activity are in many ways a response to the perceived presence of danger, are they not? You and I know that there's no reason for people to take issue with us going about our business, but to the uninitiated a strange bloke with a camera is potentially a threat...............after all, a camera produces photographs and when a camera is pointed at a child..............well, how do we know that "that bloke with a camera" isn't a pervert? It's all well and good demanding to know what harm you're doing (because you know that your intentions are honorable and healthy), but I don't think a photographer these days can afford to ignore the corner that society in general has painted itself into.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm glad we had this discussion ;)

An image of Rich while out shooting.

http://1x.com/v2/#photos/latest-additions/29046/

This may have something to do with the fathers concern?.....

This makes sense. But what I am still fishing for - not as a way of demanding proof - (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) but was there a particularly famous incident or situation (Polanski?) that has fostered this belief.

In the 1600's women in New England were hung for being witches. In the 1950's people were accused of being pinko's. Is it purely just the advent of the internet and widespread access to pornography - which is created with a camera - that makes people think all cameras are tools of deviance?

To stoke a fire. Would a photog (innocent) who is bashed to death be called a hate crime in the same way than if a homosexual was bashed to death?

Close - not that I wear sunnies, but I'm waaaay too self conscious to wear them at night time!

My photo is here:

http://www.candisgroup.com/index.php/founders-and-partners

And here (in shorts again):

http://www.utilitycomputing.com.cn/about

I think I look kind of cuddly and harmless...

Looks like the same guy to me Mal! LOL The glasses are a disguise it seems.

harmless yes, cuddly Naaaah.....

the resemblance is striking Will.......

I know this has nothing to do with the topic but has to do with changing times and people's attitudes. I got up from my seat the other day on the tube to let a woman sit down and the look I got was unreal. She looked gobsmacked. People look at you as if to say .....what the hell are you doing. Where has all the politeness and good will gone over the past years.

There have been numerous recent cases involving high-profile celebrities and 'regular' paedophiles, who have been found with hundreds, if not thousands of pornographic images of children on their computers. Other cases have involved actual paedophile rings, whose members are often revealed to have indulged in both the physical abuse of children, and the trading in indecent video and stills photography of minors. These cases are fairly common and well-publicised, so it isn't difficult to see why people have become somewhat over-protective, especially where their children and 'strangers with cameras' are concerned.


Sure, but in both the eras you've mentioned, it was pure hysteria which fuelled the paranoia, rather than a tangible threat from witchcraft or communism. While it's fair to say that many people are unnecessarility hostile and over-protective of their kids, there is today at least a genuine threat behind that mistrust and over-cautiousness.


Let's be honest, cameras are in some ways like knives; they can both be used creatively, they can both be used as everyday tools and they can both be used (in different ways, of course) to devasting effect to cause harm, to generate fear or to ruin lives. Like knives (here in the UK, knife crime has increased dramatically in the last decade) cameras have been hit rather hard in PR terms thanks to a number of significant factors, not least of which has been the massive amount of enforced surveillance we're now subjected to almost wherever we go. So yes, there's some understandable paranoia driven by the notion that a man with a camera might be a pervert, but there's also a great deal of seething resentment out there for anything which symbolises the fact that Big Brother Is Watching Us.


Good question. I think the answer would depend on the circumstances. You could argue that the motives of a man protecting his daughter from what he perceived to be a pervert with a camera would differ hugely from a gang of thugs whose hatred was fuelled by ignorance and the desire for some kind of revenge against whatever they felt the photographer represented, but whatever the outcome of that argument, I think the example is possibly a tad extreme for 'our' needs.

It's the same guy if you ask me! :P

All this discussion reminds me of the bird flu scare.

Do you remember bird flu? The lethal infection caused by a flu-like virus carried by birds.

A lethal infection indeed with a 50% mortality. Clearly mass hysteria developed throughout the world thanks to the constant news about the bird flu pandemics just about to develop. People, as a consequence stopped even eating chicken (which once cooked is totally harmless).

An amazing example of how journalist distort news to create alarm so that their industry thrives.

The same principle applies to paedophilia. The hysteria about it is a clear effect of the constant news about paedophilia and internet pornography.

Interestingly, the incidence of bird flu in humans is negligible (an average of 37 deaths per year) and yet people worry more than the risk of driving fast, smoking or drinking too much alcohol.

Happy to give you a free lesson Richard if you have skype and a webcam.

Regards
Bob

No, the same principle does not apply to paedophilia. The hysteria bout it is a clear effect of the constant and growing presence of sick perverts whose sexual preferences are a direct threat to the wellbeing of our children.

If you think I'm being hysterical, take a look at this UK website, which shows where convicted (child) sex offenders are located, by region.

http://www.kidshield.co.uk/kidshield_paedophile_statistics.htm

You are of course free to express any opinion you wish, but I'd politely suggest that attempting to trivialise the very real threat from people who prey on our children is a questionable course to take.

Not only there, all over Europe too if I'm not wrong.
You heard about one of the test methods? Witch or not test.. Throw the one in the sea, if she was floating she was a witch (and burned), if she sunk she was not.. Problem solved anyway!
I think there is a street photographer test on the way..

Damn!!!! Glad i don't do that anymore ;-)

Sorry, I do not know whether you are being hysterical or not. I will let you decide.


Thank you very much for allowing me to express freely my opinion! As a matter of fact I was already feeling entitled to express any opinion of mine.

If you think that I am trivializing the problem you got it wrong, as I am fully aware of the extent of the problem of abuse in children.

I am just putting things in perspective.

Of the over 570,000 cases of reported child abuse in 2002-3 in the UK, 30,000 were substantiated. Of these 10% were sexual.

I am afraid you are wrong if you assume that the greatest threat to children comes from strangers. Sadly, the vast majority of cases of abuse (in all its forms) in children happens in their own homes, where they are most vulnerable, more often than not by members of the family (namely parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, etc.).

I am sure the problem of abuse (in all its form) in children is under-reported and I would be careful not to forget that dangers do not come necessarily from strangers.

Same happens in China.

However in Hong Kong and Korea people do it all the time and the looks you get for NOT STANDING up are quite chilling.... especially in Korea. Such a clean, civilised and polite society.... really clean.

I would say that hysteria is still a healthy component. As you say about knives the world is full of inventions that can be used for good and bad and illogic. People in China were scared shitless of SARS. Yet thought nothing more of hoping on the roads, going down a coal mine or catching a plane. I find it hard to feed that hysteria.

In 2003 when SARS hit, I had a part time job while studying at UNI here teaching English to spoilt rich kids. One day I came into the class room and they were boiling vinegar with an open flame uder two bricks, right below the nylon curtains on the windows.

I lost my temper so to speak. So it then turned to a maths class on the percentage of people out of 1.3 Billion who have died of SARS - even multiplied by 100 to be sure, compared to the percentage of people killed in road crashes each year to then the very likely outcome of death or fire from an naked flame inside a building in close proximity to polymer based materials......oh and the complete lack of evidence that boiled vinegar can kill air borne bugs.

Was SARS a threat? Yes. Was the threat large or small? Who knew/knows. Was their reaction to the threat completely illogical, out of step and actually placing them in MORE harm? Yes.

I feel the same way about this camera situation.

Or unfit parents:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/father-praises-12yearold-mother-20091109-i4c8.html

Of course you don't. So what made you think you 'knew' that other people were being hysterical when you said:

The same principle applies to paedophilia. The hysteria about it is a clear effect of the constant news about paedophilia and internet pornography


It wasn't a question of me 'granting' you permission to express a view, it was merely a statement of fact; you are of course free to say anything you like, whether I agree with it or not. What made you think I was in a position to give you permission to speak your mind...........or were you simply being facetious?


Your comments about the apparent hysteria surrounding paedophilia and your unfortunate analogy which compared people's reactions to it to those of the Bird Flu outbreak stongly implied that you were trivialising the understandable fears parents have when it comes to their children and the dangers they face in the presence of paedophiles. If you're now saying that wasn't your intention, then I'm slightly confused as to what your actual motives were for saying what you said.


Most of these were domestic cases, which paints a sad picture indeed. However it isn't relevant to what we were discussing, which was the threat from practising paedophiles who are not known to their victims. Did you look at the website which showed the names of UK-registered sex offenders and paedophiles, along with where there were living? It very quickly makes you realise that while parents can be over-protective, they are at least trying to protect their kids from what is a very real problem.


Had I actually implied that "the greatest threat to children comes from strangers", you may have had a point. However I didn't say anything of the sort, I simply pointed out that it's understandable for parents to want to protect their children when they're fully aware that there are perverts and paedophiles in their communities. Abuse in the home, while admittedly a very real problem in many countries, isn't relevant to what we were discussing.

But are paedophiles everywhere? Lurking under every seat or in every closet? Washing hands is a good precaution to take to avoid infection and disease. Surely we can't place paedophiles in the same region as microbes?

People are murdered all the time with what seems increasing frequency. Yet we don't pull out a gun or start running when faced with a situation that we feel will lead to our murder. Because we know that such situations either present themselves as very real possibilities and others are just the work of an over active imagination.

I accept that a parent is protective of their child. But so is everyone else of their own safety and life. Just because they are a parent why then does it appear to me that their hysteria or imagination is given more free reign to run amok?

This in itself is a problem. Why not keep a web site of all other kinds of former criminals? Why do these perverts not command the same ability to repay their debts to society as others do? I seem to remember that those two boys that killed the little toddler on the railway are now free for crying out loud and living with new names at the expense of the crown. :-s

What are we in society now? A pack of fearful sheep ready to throw away all tenants of stable society and run around like vigilantes with the self control of natives from a lesser developed world?

My point is, I don't know why society is the way it is. maybe it is part of the failing of society (I am one that agrees in the theories and studies that western society as we know it today is doomed - starting with Europe and maybe making it's way to the USA and AUS after...) or maybe it isn't. But why should I tacitly condone it?


So why not just lock their kids in a padded room and never let them go out. Because a parent has lost their grip on reality and logic - why should we condone it? Because they are a parent? What gives them MORE rights in public than the next person? Why are they different just because they elected to breed? We are after all humans. With free will and thought and not based on instincts like a "mother bear" is.

so I don*t see why you should not use your own free will and thought to keep your situation a peaceful one.

Doro

Touche. Yes.

They're certainly in every town and city, yes. The website I linked to shows you just how prolific they are.


Protecting your children from strangers in public places is a good precaution to take, too. Who mentioned wanting to place paedophiles in the same category as microbes..?


The fact that people are assaulted / mugged / raped / murdered frequently is one of the reasons society has become more paranoid and defensive, so while it's entirely possible that certain people's imaginations work overtime, I don't feel that a degree of caution is a bad thing, given the available statistics. Most people DO react instinctively to situations in which they feel threatened, so I'm not sure why you'd suggest otherwise. We don't have guns here in the UK, but you can be sure that if we did and danger was present, most of us would be happy to "pull it out". So to speak.


A child isn't as capable of defending itself as an adult. Parents are instinctively aware of this, so their reactions to perceived dangers are heightened when children are around. I don't think it's reasonable to compare that behaviour with how adults in general might react to similar circumstances where perhaps there are no children involved.

Not a bit of it. People are certainly aware of the potential threats to their own wellbeing and to the wellbeing of their children, but your description certainly doesn't apply to society as I know it, and nor does it in any way relate to the incident you recalled for us at the head of this thread.


I'm afraid I see this kind of talk as irrational or hysterical. Nobody wants or needs to lock their kids away, nobody has lost their grip on reality and therefore there's nothing to condone. A parent doesn't have MORE rights in public than the next person, but they certainly have the right to protect their children from anything which might reasonably be considered to be a threat or an intrusion of their privacy. Another poster challenged your last comment beautifully, so I'll say nothing more about that...

So we are all at the stage now where the above comment can apply to photographers?

I still don't see how a photographer can ultimately and logically be associated with a paedophile - even given our conversations. I could associate eggplants to chemical weapons if I tried hard enough...... it just isn't.... reasonable.


Well it is a fair comparison when talking about basic precautions that we all take. Wash hands, wear seat belt, look before crossing the road........hound out photogs.....?

Not 'photographers' per se, no. As I said, I thnk it can be reasonably applied to anyone who might reasonably be considered a threat, however the action taken by a parent or guardian should always be appropriate to the level of whatever that threat might be, perceived or otherwise. In your case with the Frenchman, I think his reaction, if not necesarily his manner, was appropriate........at least from what I've learned so far.


That association may or may not have been made the other day, I don't know. However it's probably the most likely assumption and as I've said, strangers with cameras are often confronted by parents with children. If you still can't see how a stranger pointing a camera at a child in a public place might be interpreted as something more sinister than an 'honest' street photographer going about his business, then I don't know what else to say. Just don't be too surprised if it happens again.


Come on. Photographers aren't being "hounded", it's just that they're more likely to be confronted if they don't grant those they're so blatantly photographing the courtesy of an explanation.

To Richard,


Be it for good reasons or not, I am afraid that that is a fact. Furthermore even the concept of "honest street photog" is challenged nowadays. I am sure that many people would think these pics :

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_138991_163502_helen-levitt.jpg
http://www.cameranaked.com/images/StreetKids-HelenLevitt.jpg

could be made by a voyeur.

No I honestly can't see how a photographer could be interpreted as anything else other than, a photographer. But for sure, I am not going to be surprised if it happens the next time. I will shoot and approach the same as always, I'll just be prepared now to be firm and calm in my reaction as opposed to firm and provocative. I can see how that is ultimately a failed strategy.

I do not understand why you decided that my analogy is so unfortunate. In both cases people overreact to a risk in a way that is excessive, irrational and not relevant. To attack a photographer like Richard or a lady who is addressing a distressed child because of the risk of a paedophile being around is .

There are 45 registered sex offenders per 100,000 inhabitants in London according to the statistics that you pointed to. A rate of 0.045%.

To put things in perspective, the risk of severe and life threatening brain infection in case of measles is 1 in 1000 (0.1%). During the MMR scare about 60% of parents did not allow vaccination of their children exposing them to a significant risk of death or harm.

I understand parents concerns about strangers, they are not unjustified, but if children are properly supervised by their parents what is the risk? Why all this paranoia? All it takes is good parenthood to keep children healthy and safe.

Where is the relevance? It is in the paranoid approach to risks.

Paranoia is never good, it prompts irrational behaviour, which may have pretty bad outcomes.

Anyhow we can agree to disagree and move on. :)

I just went looking for a shot I took of a kid crapping on the side walk through his Chinese "Shit Slits" split pants... alas I cleaned up my scans recently of obvious non arty shots.... It just didn't grab me like the above did.

I also have a shot of four young/teenage boys who were standing in a circle in my compound pissing onto a tree together with 3 little wangs on display...... again as a photo it didn't come out great...

...not rational and perhaps even damaging to the child in the latter case.

Sorry, I had not completed the sentence. :)

Fair enough. For the record, I've had my fair share of confrontations when I've been out with my camera, and I can't say that I've been calm or rational in every situation. If nothing else, this just shows that as animals, we're far more instinctive in the heat of the moment than you're giving this guy (the French-speaking parent) credit for.

Like I said, a good discussion. Thanks for taking my criticism with such grace,

When it comes to the very real presence of paedophililes, to sex-offenders and to perverts in our communities, at what point is a healthy concern for your kids considered to be irrational or not relevant?

I have seen or heard no evidence which suggests that the guy Richard met the other day was overreacting. He may have been rude (I don't know), but he was perfectly entitled to object to his daughter being photographed. At the same time, I think Richard was perfectly entitled to defend his position, but the moral high ground was lost completely when the insults began.


Richard wasn't attacked, he was confronted. Despite the tension, it was a conpletely non-violent, non-threatening exchange. All perfectly rational, if you discount the name-calling.


As much as I'm happy to accept that those statistics are true, I fail to see how or why they affect my argument.


Therefore you'll appreciate what the girl's parent was doing the other day, when he became aware that Richard was pointing a camera at his daughter.


Of course :)

My main concern was that he demanded I ask his permission. Like I have to seek his permission. No I don't. What caused me to want to call him names is not that he didn't want me to shoot - but that he honestly thought it was his prerogative to expect that I would seek permission to do something that I am allowed to do already irrespective of what he thinks.

To bring it back a bit from his parental mind spasm. The point is that why do people somehow think that a photog has to ask permission to do something while other people are free to do their own thing in public without having to seek permission.

This *&#^ was completely adamant that he was correct in chastising me for not seeking permission.... WTF? This brings me back to my thoughts on cultures and the direction/survivability of our societies. In Australia just like in China, if people don't want a photo taken, they will turn away or raise a hand or purse to their face. They get it. What is wrong with the society that bred this person?

Jesus Richard. You shoot street stuff, this isn't the first time is it that you have had problems, so one would think you would learn to chill in these situations and you acted like a dick towards the guy.

So effin what if you have the "legal" right to shoot children in public, stop being such a knob and try putting yourself into his shoes. Perhaps he is being over protective, so what, your right to shoot all and sundry is all that counts. Perhaps you should try treating people with respect.

People like you give street shooters a bad name and make it harder for everyone else.

My view on this is that in circumstances where the subjects are adults, they can turn away or even come over and politely ask you not to photograph them. However where children are involved, and considering the atmosphere of mild paranoia which we've already discussed at length, a better approach (if you're close enough to speak to whoever might be the parent or guardian) might be to simply take a few seconds to explain what you're doing, perhaps even to offer a print. This way, you've been seen to 'break cover' and to be courteous, which might go an awful long way to reducing any potential confrontations.

Nobody's trying to say that what you were doing the other day was wrong, but at the same time I don't think a photographer can simply go out into the world and photograph children these days, without at least expecting some form of confrontation or objection. Times have changed, people are considerably more wary than they were say 10 or 15 years ago and children, whether you like it or not, are considered more vulnerable than at any time before.

To answer your question, I don't think 'permission' (even with kids) should necesssarily be a requirement, although I would probably be inclined to ask out of courtesy. What I do think is that prior to photographing children, some form of polite communication with a responsible adult is wise, given how society in general appears to be somewhat less willing to trust 'strangers' than it used to be.

I usually (always) stop and talk and often offer and have sent prints.

The problem here was that I was not given the chance to be polite and act as normal. To him, I get the feeling that I was already a vestigial of society that deserves nada..... not to compare myself with people of colour in the US - but it is also like in my shot "Summarily" where foreigners were singled out for SARS and again now for H1N1. It is not nice to be profiled according to some stereotype. :-(

Yet you seem to be so fond of doing it yourself.

let go everybody. enjoy photography and let the random bad situation go.

Yes. And no. It all depends on the moment.........and my mood. I do try hard not to be the aggressor. But I don't accept being pushed. Things start with a push in life and before you know it you are being trampled on. One has to draw the line firmly. Failure to do so in China WILL result in one being chewed up and spat out.....

FYI here is the said out put. Shocking I know.


Feel free to critique over in the CRITIQUE forum where there is a thread. Not here please.

Hi Richard,

should never try this in Germany, there is a right on your own picture. You would need written permission of the parent to take the shot in the first place. If you want to publish it in any media or non purely private use, you will need a model contract as far a I know. Otherwise you are in big, really big trouble.

Would it have been an issue to ask the bunch of youngster if they mind being pictured in advance? That would at least have eased the situation.

What I do not understand is the notion of a "hypocritical facist" has to do with the situation? Or was it just for you to ease some frustration?

Oliver

@ Oliver

Mainly venting steam. Yes.

I can't believe that in Germany (given the sordid history of Germany) they have such a law? I'd of thought that individual liberty would be a priority?

Funny thing is - just because you are IN a picture - doesn't make it YOUR picture. It is MY picture. I took it. Otherwise we'd all be asking for royalties for being in the crowd shown in a DVD of a rock concert... :-s

Cheers,
RF.

Hi Richard,

well it is as has already been mentioned in the forum on "What are my rights" ... it is your picture - but it is an individual which is on your picture. To that individuals privacy or image you have no rights at all. That was why I asked how others do their street photography. You are allowed, at least from what I know, to take pictures at a public event (such as carnival) if the person is part of this event, pictures of people which are not the primary element of a picture - such as a visitor in the cathedral for example. If he is praying and gives the picture the "spirit" than you need again have to have a model release on it. Of course you are allowed to picture individuals of historic intrest such as politicians or actors but again you have to respect their privacy if they are "off the job". As far as I know france is even tougher...
Maybe it is because of our history, total surveillance as it currently is in UK is totally out of scope since you might not be able to safeguard the pictures taken.

And to steam you up a liitle ,-) individual liberty is the liberty to decide if you want to be on a picture or not. It is not the photographers decision to be taken - if I follow the path you mentioned in your quote.

Cheers

Oliver

Why don't you believe that? I wrote it in message No. 3 (see above) and I'm convinced a Google search will approve this.

And from my personal viewpoint I like this restrictive law. I don't want to find my image (or those of my children) in internet never having asked before by a "street" photographer.

I fall back on the okams razor approach to logic. It is public. The same reason we get dressed up because you can't expect people to walk around averting their eyes to you.

We put on clothes because we know that stepping outside is putting oneself on public display. I am all for manners and human respect - but trying to make laws that are logically backwards (as in the case your put forward) shows a problem. Just glad they aren't my countries. Thank god for the USA and Australia and dare I say it... China? ;-)

People talk loud on phones, others spit and litter, some fart and don't shower. I take photo's. There is a recent south part episode from this year about "Queefs" that I think anybody who has yet to grasp the contradiction in terms of demanding privacy while in public should watch. Very funny. And all very much a truism.

It's an English saying "I can't believe it!". It is rhetorical.

In China they passed laws that banned people from making fun of politicians, celebrities and VIP's. I guess those people found it too hard to police their own behaviour - or couldn't get a hold of a set of the emperor's new clothes..?

You may like it - but it is anti freedom and anti liberty and anti common sense....... then again we have seen evidence of that already this past week elsewhere on this forum. And then again on another topic on "The Advent" last Friday that I bit my tongue on for fear of being labelled a bully.

OK, I got it now. We have the same saying here in Germany :-)

Interesting how different this issue can be seen. I think it's exactly the other way round: this law in Germany ensures the freedom of the single humans and protects their lives against unwanted intrusion in their private rights.

Well following occams approach might not be appropriate since it is a heuristic approach an would be based on a majority not present here since all of us are photographers in one way or the other. We are strong minded on the freedom of pictures and thereby probably not as objective as would be needed. I can understand your quite rigid approach, but there is a difference between being in public and being published. The laws in the countries mentioned are even harsher.
What type of liberty are you talking about, the liberty of the photographer or the liberty of the one being pictured? I think it needs to be a trade of. But that was my question in another post, how this is dealt with by others. Do all others have a model release with them? Are we alone with this problem ,-)

Kind regards

Oliver

That is a good goal. And who knows it may have a basis in actual fact if you look at Princess Di. However in general if you are in public, you need to know that you are in public and thus most people adjust their behaviour in public - because it is not their living room.

If the entire world had to have each and every person put out in much the same fashion as a city is when a sitting USA President visits - then why have public communal spaces at all? Why not then just have private gardens and clubs and what not?

Well this question was asked in a thread elswhere (not mine) and then again on another by me (maybe this one) and I asked the question, "What is it that people are afraid of?" or "How can a photograph hurt someone?". And no one came up with any real answers apart from one attempt at placating hysteria and over reaction with respect to paedophilia. Which then brought up puritans and McCarthyism as other examples of flawed logic.

Logic and human emotion don't always match. But that is why we have to be so careful with making things that are natural (albeit not liked by some or the majority) illegal and wasting govt resources on said issues. It leads to well... well Europe in the 20th century.

I don't like to see two men kiss in public and "get into it". I am allowed to not like it - but I am also expecte to "tolerate" it. As it is their right to kiss if they want.

You don't have to like having a photo taken, but you tolerate it. Just like a crying baby on a plane. You don't ban babies or ask the parents to compensate. You dislike it - but your TOLERATE it. Because at the end of the day it does no real harm except to annoy you personally. And that is not enough of an issue to fundamentally change the role and structure of society and the fact that we live our lives in public spaces and share them online in public systems.

Hi Richard,

I think there is one huge difference to consider, this is, a baby crying in a plane is probably annoying, while childs noises are normal within a human society. Photography is not, actually it is a hobby or a job of us, but nothing which has any need for being tolerated if the object which is pictured against it. It is theirs, their privacy, their way of looking. If you consider individualism of being an art of itself then taking a picture would just copy that art and probably make money out of it.
I like the differentiation done within the legal system in Germany whereas everyone of historic interest might be pictured while individuals have the freedom to decide and by this the liberty to decide if they want, if they want for money or if they do not want. What is the point of having a model paid but some streetwise with the all impressing face reflecting age and experience not?
That has nothing to to with McCarthyism or other topics where the mighty tried to wiggle out of the control of the 4th power as we name the news/press institutions. Here it is all about individualisms and privacy.

Why do I have to tolerate a photo taken, esp. without a compensation? I do not agree, since there is neither a human nor a logical need for it (hopefully that remains understandable since I am not a native speaker). I might tolerate everything which does NOT affect me, e.g. kissing is fine as long as I have the right to choose who kisses me! I guess that is the difference to make.

Oliver

Why should it all be about compensation? Models are paid because it is their job. They do this and not other things - they are paid for the opportunity cost of their time. A person on the street has no opportunity cost of me shooting them. I don't need or ask them to do anything.

What makes an ordinary person of lesser "Historic" importance than anyone else? Everyone and our life, lives, way of life and culture is of historic importance. Anthropologists don't just study the Pharaohs but also the people that built the pyramids and what not.

To take your argument and fuse it with another one from this week where animals are somehow more important than people - then why don't we not shoot animals unless they all consent? That would be ludicrous. As would a society where people can't walk around in public without knowing what legal jurisdiction they are in or not.

Babies don't have to cry. People don't have to fly. People with babies don't have to go outside. It is a slippery slope like asking the question "How long is a piece of string" to use the argument that what is "normal" or constitutes a basic necessity of life - as being a test.

The logic is simple. Yes. Public and private. And logical and rational people understand that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. And strong countries with decent legal systems (IE common law and not civil law) uphold these values.

Again, taking a photo hurts no one. So why should one person be able to cause a complete and total destruction of my rights for what may be a once a year or once a life time annoyance of having their photo taken. What is wrong with Germany et al? Are people being photographed 1000 times every day? I mean c'mon - get reasonable and logical here...... for the sake of society and people being able to watch documentaries about the world and read up (and look back) on history the price of admission is a measly photography that each individual MAY find themselves in once in their life.

If taking a photo of someone in the street is such an awful breach of privacy (and in France laws are so tough) what do you make of Sophie Calle and her work, then?
I wonder why she is not in a French jail serving a life sentence, then! ;)

This is why I don't take pictures of unknown people.

Well Richard, your argue has a simple flaw, you assume that someone who works as a model does a different job than someone who is taken as a model which is simply wrong. The judgement is on what you do not on what you are. So taking someone as a model (as a significant part of your picture) makes him a model. From that point one would need a model release.
The topic on historic importance is a direct translation from the legal text, sorry for that but "Jo average" has probably a different historic impact than the Management of the Lehman Bros.
Please do not fuse my argue with some other - it has nothing to do with this and is not to be bend to fit just to support an argue. Yes Babies do cry, people choose to fly and people with babies have a briefed right to go outside. All of these are not transferable to someone who imposes an own interest onto other peoples privacy. Taking a photo might hurt people as has been proven by Google Street View. Germany has learned probably much more out of his history, to respect the privacy and liberty of the individual. So from that point of view I do not think something wrong with Germany. That is different to UK where taking a picture can be taken as an offense under Terrorism Act 2000.
Anyhow I can understand your point of view since it is annoying for us who like to take pictures. On the other hand I prefer to be asked if I am to be pictured (remember that does only apply if I am not part of a public event like carnival, demonstrations, etc.).

@ Marcello - probably just because no one cares - which is the same in Germany. As long as no one complains, everything is fine. That was actually the core of my other post. Just because of the bad experience of a friend of mine. She did street photography - later on one of the pictured wanted to have a compensation. Sadly not a small one.

@ Skidzam - same do I, but like to know how other people deal with this.

Oliver

OK but to sneak in a hotel room (while working as a maid), scavenge through personal items and take photographs and collect info about people who, unaware, are leaving their luggage is a much greater intrusion into one's personal life than a single photo in the street.

So my question is why people do care so much about their face being shown and so much less about the rest.

And why some artists get away with so much and others do not? Should there not be a way to allow artists to produce their work and not be so easily prosecuted as long as they do not slander or damage people with their work?

Hi Marcello,
well even though I share the same question I do not have any idea. Guess that would mean to understand the concept of human nature which I definitely do not. Probably it is part of the art to get troubled wherever possible.
... but as long as one keeps his minds up...

Cheers

But I am not employing them. Being in a photo doesn't make you a model. Just like being in a plane doesn't make me a pilot and playing Rugby on the weekend with my boof head mates doesn't make me a David Campesie or Johnny WIlkinson.


So people are only of historic importance if they make an impact? So if no one is there to document what they do - so no one knows what they did (Mother Theresa for example) then they therefore had no impact on society - so they are not important, so we don't need to document them?

If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is there to hear it fall - did it make a sound or not?


Privacy? It is outside. I can stand and stare at you. I can run up and smell you. I can stand around and point fingers at you and laugh at you or joke about you... it is public. Since when did people get the idea that a bubble of privacy can follow them around while outside?

It is illogical.


So how did google street view actually hurt anyone? People got angry for what reason? Where is the harm? Because someone got angry - that is not in itself evidence of harm. Otherwise we are going to need quantum physics and the theory of entropy to make any law any more!

So how did google cause harm? What is the measurable and manifest harm done?


True. But people stood up to that stupidity and it was just this past month where the police commissioner stood up and accepted that the law was used incorrectly and it was laid out plain and simple - freeing photogs to get on and do what they wanted to do all along. Victory for common sense.


You are outside - how can outside have public and "public event". How can you make a distinction? Why does an event need to have a name given to it to be called an event and be made then 'public'?

A man goes up and slaps a woman in public - BANG - that is an 'event'. Is he entitled to ,ore or less privacy than anyone else? More or less because he hit a woman? Or because it is not classified as an event we are all meant to avert our eyes and not look at him...?

Public is public. Private is private. There is no in between.


There is nothing to "deal" with. There are crazy people all over the world. I take exception to photography been taken exception to over other far more socially undesirable (real undesirable) behaviour. No one is yet to explain how taking a photo can hurt someone or cause harm....

You shot an image of me in public displayed it on an internet platform (let's say 1X :-). Then someone picks this image and displays it on his blog or elsewhere and writes some harmful or untrue things about me.

German law gives me the right to say if and where MY FACE can be photographed / displayed or not. And (again), I like that.


I don't know if google really caused harm, but people argued, that it is an easy tool to look for suitable properties for planning burglary.

But that is an issue of slander from the author - has nothing to do with the photography. I can take an image from you (of you) that you agreed to an akter it or put it up next to a porn site or similar.... if derivation of use is a cause - then we can't have cars because someone might drink drive or crash into people.....

Am I allowed in German law to remember your face and draw it and upload that? Am I allowed the right to free speech or not? Am I allowed freedom period?

Richard, my English is horrible, but i try to teach you :

Your fredoom ends when your enter in others freendom or when you do something ilicit by law.

There are a hard discussion in law foruns worlwide about take photos of children, ever with parents autorization and publish it. Some respected international law and University experts in childrens rights and in civil law defends a parental autorization for take photos of a children is not enough for publish it, except as a essencial part of a journalist work or documentary. Just take photos of children for art purposes or comercial is against the privacity of the children and parents can´t have no legal power to permit you do that.

But if you tkae photos of a chindren after parents express oposition to that you are doing a ilicit act by law, and can be severe punished by that, and if you publish that photo is ever worst.

My own opinion is a little bit diferent, related to publish or not childrens photos allways with parental autorization, but allways in a way that dignifies the children and in a way that these children like the photo when see it in adult age in future.

I hate see photos of childrens in poberty, in 3rd world in medlle of trash or asking for money in streets, EXCEPT if in a journalistic document and if is absolute necessary, allways preserving chindren identity.

If someone take photos to my childrens without my consent and publish it, maybe he will need to work the rest of his life to pay me and i give all money to a childrens charity organization. It´s my rights and my children rights against the "freedom" of the photographer.

But only possible after you have taken an image of me without asking!

But that is illogical. It didn't happen because I took the photo. The person could get a photo from anywhere. There is, grant you in common law the concept of "Reasonable Expectation". Such that if it is reasonable to assume that because of your actions someone else may do something and get hurt - then you are responsible. It then goes to the concept of "Causation" and there are rules to limit how far that can go.

For example. If I have a flat tyre and stop on the side of the road to fix it, is it a reasonable expectation that someone else may also pull over to help? Yes. Is it then a reasonable expectation that if that person is on the side of the road helping me they may get hit by another car? Yes. So if the flat tyre is an accident - then so be it. But if it is due to my negligence then the law would state - it is reasonable to assume that you would get stuck on a road and someone would have to stop and help and then be endangered.

Now causation then kicks in - otherwise this "chain" of events could go right on down the line to a Japanese dolphin being elected into parliament. So there are rules on where this chain stops.

The point is. Is it reasonable to expect that the result of every single photo taken is going to be used in some bad way? No. Can it happen? Yes. But it is not reasonable to assume that it is the only outcome and that all people are nor responsible. So therefore, reason dictates that it is not something you can or should legislate about.

Parents should do the parenting. Not governments or lawyers. That's all I'll say on that topic.


So the parents don't have the right to grant permission, but now they do and breaking it is even worse. Which is it? They can or they can't give permission? Since when did parents become the law makers of society? And again - why photography - where is the actual harm over say, passive smoking, junk food, violence on TV, sexualisation of young girls by fashion labels and magazines....?


Why not dignity for all? I don't think photographers set out to humiliate people. There are paparazzi - but I am sure most people here and in the world would not regard them as photographers? No?

Again if a person does something silly or loos silly - they have hummiliated themselves - irrespective of a photo. All a photo does is capture the moment. It doesn't create it.

This argument is like saying.... "I am in jail because YOU told the police I murdered that man! It's your fault!!!".

No you are in jail because you murdered a man. Not because I told the police about it.

"I lost my wife because you made a photo of me and another girl!"

No, you lost your wife because you were with another girl.

Modus Ponens.


Failure to talk about it or document it is worse. This is another topic all together. This indeed is an easier argument to have as the "intent" or the "merits" of the photog are easier to ascertain. Than an art of documentary shooter.


So the old US of A attitude then? Sue people into non existence. Again - it is public. You have no rights to privacy in public. If your home - then f course a different subject all together. But you can expect to be granted the rights of privacy while in public. If that were the case, then if an accident happened around you - say a wet floor - then it would be YOUR fault and YOUR responsibility to pay for the medical expenses of the person that fell over and not the shop or council that left the area wet - because with the right to privacy or private possession also comes the responsibility of management and duty of care that goes with that "Private" property.

That sounds silly though doesn't it? But that is what you are in fact advocating. You can't pick and choose. It is either fully public or fully private.

I guess I will put in may 2 cents again for better or worse. At one time I did a little street photography but being a somewhat private person myself I felt it necessary to ask permission first. When doing this all of the natural aspect of the shot was lost as then the person would pose even though I ask them to go about what they were doing (mostly they just kept focus on me and the camera). I thought about this for a long while as I personally would prefer that a photographer ask my permission for a photo just as a courtesy. I just left it (that is just me) but still may get events on a street scene (not on an individual) I don't have problems with others doing this just know my own feelings. Richard if you were just a little paranoid and it seemed that some photographer was following you around collecting photos, I wonder what your reaction would be LOL ;-) I think if it came down to a vote from the general public no matter where you lived the results would be very interesting. will

I have had others shoot me before and at times it does annoy me - but apart from feelings of hypocrisy - I just put up with it as it is part of life and it does no harm and it is not everyday.....then again being a foreigner in China in 1999 - even in Beijing random people would come up and ask for a photo with you... ;-)

I always ask after or smile or offer some form of communication. ALWAYS. But for the reasons that you stated you can't do so before hand. I do the conversation/asking stuff not because of any legal requirement - just out of manners. The same manners this man could not display......

Wrong. Government and lawyers must grant parents do "parenting" under law and protect children. Don´t read newspapers and watch TV ? Poor children if Goverment don´t give protection and laws to protect them. I only hope Governments of all nations do that in a strong way than before.
This right of all Governments is expressed in the :

"Convention on the Rights of the Child
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989
Entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49

.../... Article 19

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. "


As i said, my English is not good, Richard. Until now it´s possible in most countrys parents give permission toptogorapher take photos and use them in a comercial way and ever publishing, EXCEPT photos that can violate childrens rights, like childrens abuse, phornography, nudes, that is crime by special law.

What i try to said is in this moment there are a discussion worldwide about the right the parents have to permit take photos of children in order to avoid abuse of children in many ways, not only the ones i write above. I can give you a example : there are cases of parents that give permition for a children be photographed and filmed for publicity or fashion and the parents have profit from that. By work laws that can colide with children rights. A children that passes hours and days in a studio being filmed ... and who knows what that children will think about that in adult age ? So the parents are do the right "parenting" ?


Another example ... sexualisation of young girls in fashion photo works with parents permission ...

So, the big legal problem here is a definition that can change from diferent countrys, and is the word "decent" or "indecent" ... and that decision is for a juri in court.

By example, in UK the two main offence provisions in this area are section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (PCA 1978) and s.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988). The Protection of Children Act 1978 addresses certain aspects of the sexual exploitation of children by penalising the making, distribution, showing and advertisement of indecent photographs of them. The test to be applied in respect of child pornography is whether or not it is indecent. The word 'indecent' has not been defined by the Protection of Children Act 1978, but case law has said that it is for the jury to decide based on the recognized standards of propriety..

But in 2003, the Sentencing Advisory Panel provided guidance for Judges considering sentences for people convicted of an offence under the Protection of Children Act. The lowest level of indecency was described as "images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity."

Section 1 Protection of Children Act 1978 covers a wide range of offences concerning indecent photographs of children. Furthermore, it extends to the making of "pseudo-photographs", defined as "an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph." Throughout the Act pseudo-photographs are put on the same footing as actual photographs. It is possible to convict a person of making a pseudo-photograph where the dominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child, notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult.


"public" is not a linear concept, Richard.

Public photography is wide open, it?s the general rule. But there are exceptions. I can be in a public place and expects privacy to me and my childrens.
A public WC is a public place and you can´t take photos there, a public bath is also "public" and you can´t take photos there, except with autorisation.

You can take a photo of people or childrens playing in a park if the pricipal motif of photo is the park environment and not childrens or people, but if the children or other persons are principal motif, you can not take it or use that photo without autorisation. And that autorisation must be in order to only take the photo for private purposes. If you publish it, comercialize it, it´s bether for you to have a legal document signed by the model in order to use it, and allways ask permission, because the right to privacy of people is a fundamental right.

So, call "biggest hypocritical fascist" to a parent that don´t give you autorization to take photos of his children ... maybe be a little arrogance.

Private and family life, subject to certain restrictions are necessary in a democratic society and is consagrated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Seems like the guy who got in front of you that you describe in your original post WAS DOING JUST THAT!! He was parenting and you didn't like it. Period. And if you were a parent, you would understand. I'm nearly certain of that!


I don't that many, if any supreme courts anywhere in the world would agree with this statement, especially not the U.S. one. I'm not saying that I don't agree, I'm just saying that in the world/country we live in that's just not the case.

@ Rui,

Don't get me started on what I think of the UN or ECHR/EU big interfering govt in general. As I said. That's all I'll say on that topic.

I am not denying the need to protect children. But explain to me again how taking a photo is hurting a child?

Yes with an unlimited string of causation you could argue that a photo hurts. But so do cars, planes, trains and computer game consoles.

A little bit of common sense is needed. The comparison to McCarthyism is very apt.

Why do I have to be a parent to "understand". I have never been murdered, subject to murder or carried out murder. But I understand the topics and emotions involved and can form a healthy opinion on the topic of murder.

I love my dog. If someone wants to take a photo of him, fine. Am I worried about compensation (???? I am not a nutter), am I worried about some animal porn or misuse or whatever imaginary problem people have linked to photography? No.

You can substitute wife, sister, friend, myself - whatever for "dog" in the above sentence.

My point exactly:

http://1x.com/v2/#/discussions/17673/himalayas-30-years-ago/

Q. E. D.

There is a campaign going on promoted by the BJP, to try and stop this nonsense of targeting photographers with the excuse of terrorism, etc. I am going join in.

http://www.not-a-crime.com/

Society is better off BY FAR for the existence of photographers... the nonsense from above that only certain people are of historical significance speaks volumes as to that cultures grasp on democracy and freedom. Let alone history and human rights respect.

People make fun of the USA for having ex actors and sports people become politicians. That is the wrong attitude. It is great that any old person in the USA can say "I give a damn" and want to do something about it and can. Those people are just as, if not more qualified for govt than some aristocrat with degrees in political science and international relations who believe that the right to have an opinion or a say is something exclusive to some circle of people who can assign them that basic human right and valuation.

It is PRECISELY why in the USA that any old person can be a president, politician or live the american dream that makes that country the greatest the modern world has ever seen. And attitudes that start to destroy that line of thinking, "Only certain people are of historical significance" (ie some people are more important than others) or the govts should do everything for people except wipe our bums (dictate rules of parenting or legislate human manners and interaction).

The assault on photography for what is still amounting to no real evidence or reason is just another sign of the decay of some societies and people as they further shun logical deduction and start to embrace alarmism and "cause celeb" for what they individually think is a problem (Hello environmental/global warming movement). And often do so behind the veiled protection of another topic... photography = paedophilia or terrorism, just like "pro life" is made out to equal anti women or pro fundamentalistic religion by freak nut case women in some corners of the media these days.

People need to get a grip and focus on the greater good of society and our world race as opposed to getting caught up in what amounts to selfish crusades (hello dolphin activism). And stop dragging debate and common sense through the mud.