street photography ethics

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by sholtzma

I can't think of anything ethically impermissible about taking photos of children, whether your own or other people's, whether by consent or in public without consent. What is the ethical problem you believe you discern?

Taking the photo is the ethical concern. Taking the photo then opens up the issues of use of a photo of a minor.

What purpose does a person have to take photos of children that aren't theirs. Why would someone take those photos? I cannot think of any situation where I would think it would be a good idea to go to a park and take photos of kids I don't know. I would have no use for such photos. Hense the question of ethics is brought up. If you have no use for the photos why are you doing it? Is it for a nefarious purposes? Maybe not. But the fact that it's outside the normal behavior raises questions of the reasons for photographing which again brings us back to the ethical question.

I think if this thread was in a different forum (one that was not all photographers) you would get vastly different reactions.

---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 01:58 PM ----------

Originally posted by Murfy

Aside from art (and I have art photos I can provide), they are statements about society, and for photojournalism. The people who took photos of children working in factories lead to child labor laws. Without those photos, do you think things would have changed as fast as they did? How about children refuges?

What about DIane Arbus? Mary Ellen Mark? Dorethea Lange? They took photos of people who had no voice. They exposed people to things they would never see otherwise
What about the photographer whose recent photos of the Baltimore Riots were on the cover of time. He took photos of children in the middle of the riots, look at his instagram account (I can't remember his name offhand)

Taking photos of children can cause change...for good. It can expose adults to environments children are in and cause them to do something good to help them.

Ethics? So you think Lewis Hine was saying - no I need permission from the parents, who are using children as slave labor, first.

We're talking about street photography ... Presumably in a first world country. We are not talking about photojournalism. I don't think the op was intending to go to factories in Indonesia

Murfy · 04-19-2016, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by bakerking31

We're talking about street photography ... Presumably in a first world country. We are not talking about photojournalism. I don't think the op was intending to go to factories in Indonesia

Diane Arbus and Mary Ellen Mark were steet photographers. Taken mostly in new york. Recently. I have no idea where you are getting factories in indonesia. All the examples I gave are recent and all happened in the US in metro cities - Baltimore Riots were last year in fact. Taken in Balitmore. In Maryland. That is not indonesia. And they were literally on the street. In Baltimore. Street photography. What is the difference between photojournalism and street photography exactly? People argue over that, there is no set definition and they can be one in the same. Diane Arbus was not a photojournalist, Lewis Hine was not, neither was the person who photo ended up on the cover of Time. They were street photographers.

Originally posted by bakerking31

I think if this thread was in a different forum (one that was not all photographers) you would get vastly different reactions.

I am pretty sure that many people in Baltimore did not have a bad reaction to their children being photographed. I know many people invited the local art school (MICA) to come down and take photos.

alamo5000 · 04-19-2016, 02:09 PM - **2 Likes**

Before I started traveling and I was back home I never did 'street' photography at all. There was for one no opportunity for it in that environment. But as I am going around to various countries it's a totally different story. On the streets things happen. Events happen. people are singing or playing music... or partying and drinking... or here they are fishing or doing any number of curious things....or they just might be interesting people in interesting places...doing interesting things...

For example this was a plain old candid shot from when I was in Nairobi... this dude was cruising around with a cart full of chickens....

This one was taken in a fruit market...

I have gotten a number of good shots out taking things on the street. I think it all depends on where you are at and how you approach it. Even here or anywhere if the person does not want their photo taken I do not take it. End of story. 95% of the time if I get a good shot I walk over and show the person and go 'look a this!' and about 2/3 of the time they want me to email them a copy....

Basically don't fight the system is the basic idea. If I am walking around the streets of New York and there is a festival going on people will be much more willing to participate... but if you sit outside somewhere awkwardly trying to sneak a shot... then of course you will have a problem.

I have seen a number, in fact hundreds of people that I would have LOVED to get the 77mm out and do a portrait of them but I didn't ask. A lot of the time that's all that it takes. Some of my shots have come from me walking around with a camera and just talking to people. For example I met one girl in Africa that was in love with Dallas (the TV show) and the Texas Rangers (the cops)...she knew the whole history of it. I was impressed...so we just hit it off and then I asked to do a photo and bam. Got it. Then her friends saw and were wanting in on the action so I took some of them too....

There is the question of 'is that really street'... but hey, I was walking around and didn't know those people 3 minutes earlier and there was no lights... no set up... just people doing their thing....but if you try to take photos of people who are trying to cover their faces it is just asking for trouble...my suggestion is to not do it unless the mood is such that 'who cares'...

And odds are if you have a willing participant 95% of the time you wind up with MUCH better photos anyway.

Murfy · 04-19-2016, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by bakerking31

I cannot think of any situation where I would think it would be a good idea to go to a park and take photos of kids

Again he said street, not PARK, no one mentioned setting up a tripod and studio lights at a park. Street photography.

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 02:17 PM

Those are some nice photos alamo

Originally posted by Murfy

Diane Arbus and Mary Ellen Mark were steet photographers. Taken mostly in new york. Recently. I have no idea where you are getting factories in indonesia. All the examples I gave are recent and all happened in the US in metro cities - Baltimore Riots were last year in fact. Taken in Balitmore. In Maryland. That is not indonesia. And they were literally on the street. In Baltimore. Street photography. What is the difference between photojournalism and street photography exactly? Diane Arbus was not a photojournalist, Lewis Hine was not, neither was the person who photo ended up on the cover of Time. They were street photographers.

I am pretty sure that many people in Baltimore did not have a bad reaction to their children being photographed. I know many people invited the local art school (MICA) to come down and take photos.

Again, you are talking about photojournalism which is different than street photography. Photos of a riot or photos of children playing at a park are completely different.

Photos documenting an event or for a cause would be photojournalism, walking down the street taking photos of random, interesting people is street photography.

**yucatanPentax** · 04-19-2016, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by bakerking31

Taking the photo is the ethical concern. Taking the photo then opens up the issues of use of a photo of a minor.
...
What purpose does a person have to take photos of children that aren't theirs. Why would someone take those photos?

Because children are universal and all subjects make interesting photographs. Why not take photos?

Photos of children

or: Street Children of Ramdi

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ramdiboy/3299674549/

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Murfy

Again he said street, not PARK, no one mentioned setting up a tripod and studio lights at a park. Street photography.

Photos of children working in factories or caught up in a riot are not street photography, they would be photojournalism.

No where did I mention a tripod and light setup, your arguements are getting ridiculous.

---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 02:21 PM ----------

Originally posted by yucatanPentax

Because children are universal and all subjects make interesting photographs. Why not take photos?

Photos of children

Maybe we are thinking of different things.

This is a scene to me. I would not have a problem with this. When I think of street photography though I think instead of the focus being on an individual

**yucatanPentax** · 04-19-2016, 02:24 PM - **2 Likes**

Titled: His brother's keeper:

**mattb123** · 04-19-2016, 02:25 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by bakerking31

This thread is about ethics, not law.

What reasonable purpose do you have photographing children that aren't yours?

There are many defences which can be used if one person assaults another that is photographing their child. But this thread is already taking a turn away from the purpose. If you want to discuss the legal implications we can make another thread.

Security camaras are a completely different realm. If you are comparing targeting children with a camera in a park to children on camera walking into a store then we obviously are way too far apart in our understanding of the issue.

I have lots of reasonable purposes and also the law on my side. I shoot for the local paper, the town, the Chamber, etc. They love photos of happy kids at a parade, for example.
I'm pretty sure you will have trouble if you act on your delusions and try to take someone's stuff.

Pornographers are not going to go out disguised as photographers as others have pointed out. I also can't imagine what kind of image taken in a public place is going to be porn unless someone is undressed or otherwise not acting like they are in public. Pedophiles are much more likely to be someone you and/or the victim already know.

Stealing someone's gear by force is definitely crossing an ethical boundary as well as a legal one.

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 02:29 PM

That is what I think of as street photography and is what I personally would have a problem with. While I can tell from our discussion you aren't someone who is up to no good, I would not make that assumption of anyone on the street I ran into.

**sholtzma** · 04-19-2016, 02:29 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by bakerking31

Taking the photo is the ethical concern. Taking the photo then opens up the issues of use of a photo of a minor.

What purpose does a person have to take photos of children that aren't theirs. Why would someone take those photos? I cannot think of any situation where I would think it would be a good idea to go to a park and take photos of kids I don't know. I would have no use for such photos. Hense the question of ethics is brought up. If you have no use for the photos why are you doing it? Is it for a nefarious purposes? Maybe not. But the fact that it's outside the normal behavior raises questions of the reasons for photographing which again brings us back to the ethical question.

I think if this thread was in a different forum (one that was not all photographers) you would get vastly different reactions.

Taking the photo is the ethical concern? Or, the use of the photo is the ethical concern? Or, the possible use of the photo is the ethical concern? Which is it?

I think I hear you saying that you believe that there is no legitimate use for a photo of someone else's child. I find that claim astonishing--astonishingly false. "Outside the normal behavior"?? So, the people this weekend who took photos of my child on stage in a musical.... had no legitimate use for the photo? What about my wife, after one of the shows, who took photos of our child and other children with her smartphone? No reasons? What about enjoyment? Memory? Curiosity? Love? Appreciation? I gave you a good reason why I went to a public park and discovered a good shot of other people's children. The kids were enthralled by an act at a booth, and I wanted to capture their intense expressions of joy, curiosity, awe, and concentration. It would have been a good photo, too, if the irrationally worried parents hadn't intruded on my freedom to take that photo.

By the way, in public we are not free to prevent someone taking our photo, so your false contrast of freedom to take the photo with freedom to avoid having the photo taken doesn't apply.

Take a look at the photo on my photo website of a child (lovingly touched by her mother) while at a museum. It's the one in black and white, so you can't miss it. I found the young girl's expression powerful and the scene aesthetically compelling. Those aren't good reasons, good enough reasons? Apparently not to you, but I assure you, they are good reasons to many, many people, including many who are not "photographers".

I can think of dozens of good reasons who someone would want to take a photo of someone else's child, whether during sports, music, dance, drama, school, recreation, or the street. Methinks your imagination is too limited. And it's not only me. Many, many photographers, including great ones, have taken photos that included ones of other people's children.

You may not ever have reason to take any photos of anyone else's children, and that's fine. I would encourage you therefore not to waste your time with such photos. But plenty of other people do have good reasons, and can justify them, for taking such photos.

Hence, your claim of an ethical issue here seems still undefended.

By the way, please don't take someone's memory card. If you do that to a pro photographer, you are interfering illegally and unethically in their work. They could sue you for everything you have, not to mention the criminal penalties you would suffer. It's not worth it. And it's not justifiable.

Murfy · 04-19-2016, 02:31 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bakerking31

Photos of children working in factories or caught up in a riot are not street photography, they would be photojournalism.

No where did I mention a tripod and light setup, your arguements are getting ridiculous.

How about Vivian Maier? She was not a photojournalist (neither was Diane Arbus or Mary Ellen Mark, but I see you breezed by them too and pulled out some examples that could go either way)
She was a street photographer. They all took photos of children. They were not photojournalists. From the website "Vivian Maier (February 1, 1926 – April 21, 2009) was an American street photographer born in New York City"

Is vivian maier a "pervert" I mean, really, that is what you see when you look at these photos?
http://www.vivianmaier.com/2141312/2013/11/VM19XXW03452-16-MC.jpg?edba90
http://www.vivianmaier.com/2141312/2013/11/VM19XXW03457-07-MC.jpg?edba90
http://www.vivianmaier.com/2141312/2013/11/VM1954W00096-02-MC.jpg?edba90

**mattb123** · 04-19-2016, 02:43 PM

Or am I a pervert for this? And if I'm not, how would you have known while I was taking it?

**cpk** · 04-19-2016, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by bakerking31

But the fact that it's outside the normal behavior raises questions of the reasons for photographing which again brings us back to the ethical question.

It's outside your normal behaviour, but not necessarily mine or someone else's.

http://www.charking.com/galleries/200-harbourfront-toronto-victoria-day-weekend-2012/

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by sholtzma

By the way, please don't take someone's memory card. If you do that to a pro photographer, you are interfering illegally and unethically in their work. They could sue you for everything you have, not to mention the criminal penalties you would suffer. It's not worth it. And it's not justifiable.

I live in the US ... You can only sue for actual damages, which would be the cost of the sd card. You may think otherwise and in some very rare cases you can sue for more, but take a law class and you will see you can only sue for actual damages in most cases.

Obviously this is a photography website so the views are biased a bit. I'm just saying if you go around taking photos of other people's kids you eventually will run into someone like me. I would be willing to bet a large portion of society is like me and would not appreciate a stranger taking photos of their kids.

I don't think anything constructive will come from my continued participation in this thread, I've said my opinion and I am in the minority on this site but that doesn't mean I am in the minority overall. If you took a poll of critics and asked what their favorite movie was that movie probably isn't going to be the same as if you asked the general public the same question.

04-19-2016, 02:02 PM	#17
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by bakerking31 We're talking about street photography ... Presumably in a first world country. We are not talking about photojournalism. I don't think the op was intending to go to factories in Indonesia Diane Arbus and Mary Ellen Mark were steet photographers. Taken mostly in new york. Recently. I have no idea where you are getting factories in indonesia. All the examples I gave are recent and all happened in the US in metro cities - Baltimore Riots were last year in fact. Taken in Balitmore. In Maryland. That is not indonesia. And they were literally on the street. In Baltimore. Street photography. What is the difference between photojournalism and street photography exactly? People argue over that, there is no set definition and they can be one in the same. Diane Arbus was not a photojournalist, Lewis Hine was not, neither was the person who photo ended up on the cover of Time. They were street photographers. Originally posted by bakerking31 I think if this thread was in a different forum (one that was not all photographers) you would get vastly different reactions. I am pretty sure that many people in Baltimore did not have a bad reaction to their children being photographed. I know many people invited the local art school (MICA) to come down and take photos. Last edited by Murfy; 04-19-2016 at 02:41 PM.

04-19-2016, 02:31 PM - 1 Like	#27
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by bakerking31 Photos of children working in factories or caught up in a riot are not street photography, they would be photojournalism. No where did I mention a tripod and light setup, your arguements are getting ridiculous. How about Vivian Maier? She was not a photojournalist (neither was Diane Arbus or Mary Ellen Mark, but I see you breezed by them too and pulled out some examples that could go either way) She was a street photographer. They all took photos of children. They were not photojournalists. From the website "Vivian Maier (February 1, 1926 – April 21, 2009) was an American street photographer born in New York City" Is vivian maier a "pervert" I mean, really, that is what you see when you look at these photos? http://www.vivianmaier.com/2141312/2013/11/VM19XXW03452-16-MC.jpg?edba90 http://www.vivianmaier.com/2141312/2013/11/VM19XXW03457-07-MC.jpg?edba90 http://www.vivianmaier.com/2141312/2013/11/VM1954W00096-02-MC.jpg?edba90 Last edited by Murfy; 04-19-2016 at 02:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic Street Photography (No, Not THAT Street Photography) - Share Your Shots of the Roads	Sagitta	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	5372	5 Days Ago 05:11 AM
Street photography protection	Greenneck	General Photography	62	03-18-2015 08:05 PM
Photography Ethics	alamo5000	Photographic Industry and Professionals	16	03-30-2013 02:25 PM
Street Photography-Photographing the street photographer?	Reportage	Photographic Technique	10	03-23-2009 07:41 AM
street photography ethics	FHPhotographer	General Talk	35	01-24-2009 05:10 PM

04-19-2016, 01:56 PM	#16
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Originally posted by sholtzma I can't think of anything ethically impermissible about taking photos of children, whether your own or other people's, whether by consent or in public without consent. What is the ethical problem you believe you discern? Taking the photo is the ethical concern. Taking the photo then opens up the issues of use of a photo of a minor. What purpose does a person have to take photos of children that aren't theirs. Why would someone take those photos? I cannot think of any situation where I would think it would be a good idea to go to a park and take photos of kids I don't know. I would have no use for such photos. Hense the question of ethics is brought up. If you have no use for the photos why are you doing it? Is it for a nefarious purposes? Maybe not. But the fact that it's outside the normal behavior raises questions of the reasons for photographing which again brings us back to the ethical question. I think if this thread was in a different forum (one that was not all photographers) you would get vastly different reactions. ---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 01:58 PM ---------- Originally posted by Murfy Aside from art (and I have art photos I can provide), they are statements about society, and for photojournalism. The people who took photos of children working in factories lead to child labor laws. Without those photos, do you think things would have changed as fast as they did? How about children refuges? What about DIane Arbus? Mary Ellen Mark? Dorethea Lange? They took photos of people who had no voice. They exposed people to things they would never see otherwise What about the photographer whose recent photos of the Baltimore Riots were on the cover of time. He took photos of children in the middle of the riots, look at his instagram account (I can't remember his name offhand) Taking photos of children can cause change...for good. It can expose adults to environments children are in and cause them to do something good to help them. Ethics? So you think Lewis Hine was saying - no I need permission from the parents, who are using children as slave labor, first. We're talking about street photography ... Presumably in a first world country. We are not talking about photojournalism. I don't think the op was intending to go to factories in Indonesia

04-19-2016, 02:09 PM - 2 Likes	#18
alamo5000 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,962	Before I started traveling and I was back home I never did 'street' photography at all. There was for one no opportunity for it in that environment. But as I am going around to various countries it's a totally different story. On the streets things happen. Events happen. people are singing or playing music... or partying and drinking... or here they are fishing or doing any number of curious things....or they just might be interesting people in interesting places...doing interesting things... For example this was a plain old candid shot from when I was in Nairobi... this dude was cruising around with a cart full of chickens.... This one was taken in a fruit market... I have gotten a number of good shots out taking things on the street. I think it all depends on where you are at and how you approach it. Even here or anywhere if the person does not want their photo taken I do not take it. End of story. 95% of the time if I get a good shot I walk over and show the person and go 'look a this!' and about 2/3 of the time they want me to email them a copy.... Basically don't fight the system is the basic idea. If I am walking around the streets of New York and there is a festival going on people will be much more willing to participate... but if you sit outside somewhere awkwardly trying to sneak a shot... then of course you will have a problem. I have seen a number, in fact hundreds of people that I would have LOVED to get the 77mm out and do a portrait of them but I didn't ask. A lot of the time that's all that it takes. Some of my shots have come from me walking around with a camera and just talking to people. For example I met one girl in Africa that was in love with Dallas (the TV show) and the Texas Rangers (the cops)...she knew the whole history of it. I was impressed...so we just hit it off and then I asked to do a photo and bam. Got it. Then her friends saw and were wanting in on the action so I took some of them too.... There is the question of 'is that really street'... but hey, I was walking around and didn't know those people 3 minutes earlier and there was no lights... no set up... just people doing their thing....but if you try to take photos of people who are trying to cover their faces it is just asking for trouble...my suggestion is to not do it unless the mood is such that 'who cares'... And odds are if you have a willing participant 95% of the time you wind up with MUCH better photos anyway.

04-19-2016, 02:16 PM	#19
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by bakerking31 I cannot think of any situation where I would think it would be a good idea to go to a park and take photos of kids Again he said street, not PARK, no one mentioned setting up a tripod and studio lights at a park. Street photography.

04-19-2016, 02:17 PM	#20
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Those are some nice photos alamo Originally posted by Murfy Diane Arbus and Mary Ellen Mark were steet photographers. Taken mostly in new york. Recently. I have no idea where you are getting factories in indonesia. All the examples I gave are recent and all happened in the US in metro cities - Baltimore Riots were last year in fact. Taken in Balitmore. In Maryland. That is not indonesia. And they were literally on the street. In Baltimore. Street photography. What is the difference between photojournalism and street photography exactly? Diane Arbus was not a photojournalist, Lewis Hine was not, neither was the person who photo ended up on the cover of Time. They were street photographers. I am pretty sure that many people in Baltimore did not have a bad reaction to their children being photographed. I know many people invited the local art school (MICA) to come down and take photos. Again, you are talking about photojournalism which is different than street photography. Photos of a riot or photos of children playing at a park are completely different. Photos documenting an event or for a cause would be photojournalism, walking down the street taking photos of random, interesting people is street photography.

04-19-2016, 02:18 PM	#21
yucatanPentax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Dallas / Yucatan Posts: 1,841	Originally posted by bakerking31 Taking the photo is the ethical concern. Taking the photo then opens up the issues of use of a photo of a minor. ... What purpose does a person have to take photos of children that aren't theirs. Why would someone take those photos? Because children are universal and all subjects make interesting photographs. Why not take photos? Photos of children or: Street Children of Ramdi https://www.flickr.com/photos/ramdiboy/3299674549/

04-19-2016, 02:19 PM	#22
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Originally posted by Murfy Again he said street, not PARK, no one mentioned setting up a tripod and studio lights at a park. Street photography. Photos of children working in factories or caught up in a riot are not street photography, they would be photojournalism. No where did I mention a tripod and light setup, your arguements are getting ridiculous. ---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 02:21 PM ---------- Originally posted by yucatanPentax Because children are universal and all subjects make interesting photographs. Why not take photos? Photos of children Maybe we are thinking of different things. This is a scene to me. I would not have a problem with this. When I think of street photography though I think instead of the focus being on an individual

04-19-2016, 02:24 PM - 2 Likes	#23
yucatanPentax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Dallas / Yucatan Posts: 1,841	Titled: His brother's keeper:

04-19-2016, 02:25 PM - 2 Likes	#24
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,873	Originally posted by bakerking31 This thread is about ethics, not law. What reasonable purpose do you have photographing children that aren't yours? There are many defences which can be used if one person assaults another that is photographing their child. But this thread is already taking a turn away from the purpose. If you want to discuss the legal implications we can make another thread. Security camaras are a completely different realm. If you are comparing targeting children with a camera in a park to children on camera walking into a store then we obviously are way too far apart in our understanding of the issue. I have lots of reasonable purposes and also the law on my side. I shoot for the local paper, the town, the Chamber, etc. They love photos of happy kids at a parade, for example. I'm pretty sure you will have trouble if you act on your delusions and try to take someone's stuff. Pornographers are not going to go out disguised as photographers as others have pointed out. I also can't imagine what kind of image taken in a public place is going to be porn unless someone is undressed or otherwise not acting like they are in public. Pedophiles are much more likely to be someone you and/or the victim already know. Stealing someone's gear by force is definitely crossing an ethical boundary as well as a legal one.

04-19-2016, 02:29 PM	#25
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	That is what I think of as street photography and is what I personally would have a problem with. While I can tell from our discussion you aren't someone who is up to no good, I would not make that assumption of anyone on the street I ran into.

04-19-2016, 02:29 PM - 2 Likes	#26
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Originally posted by bakerking31 Taking the photo is the ethical concern. Taking the photo then opens up the issues of use of a photo of a minor. What purpose does a person have to take photos of children that aren't theirs. Why would someone take those photos? I cannot think of any situation where I would think it would be a good idea to go to a park and take photos of kids I don't know. I would have no use for such photos. Hense the question of ethics is brought up. If you have no use for the photos why are you doing it? Is it for a nefarious purposes? Maybe not. But the fact that it's outside the normal behavior raises questions of the reasons for photographing which again brings us back to the ethical question. I think if this thread was in a different forum (one that was not all photographers) you would get vastly different reactions. Taking the photo is the ethical concern? Or, the use of the photo is the ethical concern? Or, the possible use of the photo is the ethical concern? Which is it? I think I hear you saying that you believe that there is no legitimate use for a photo of someone else's child. I find that claim astonishing--astonishingly false. "Outside the normal behavior"?? So, the people this weekend who took photos of my child on stage in a musical.... had no legitimate use for the photo? What about my wife, after one of the shows, who took photos of our child and other children with her smartphone? No reasons? What about enjoyment? Memory? Curiosity? Love? Appreciation? I gave you a good reason why I went to a public park and discovered a good shot of other people's children. The kids were enthralled by an act at a booth, and I wanted to capture their intense expressions of joy, curiosity, awe, and concentration. It would have been a good photo, too, if the irrationally worried parents hadn't intruded on my freedom to take that photo. By the way, in public we are not free to prevent someone taking our photo, so your false contrast of freedom to take the photo with freedom to avoid having the photo taken doesn't apply. Take a look at the photo on my photo website of a child (lovingly touched by her mother) while at a museum. It's the one in black and white, so you can't miss it. I found the young girl's expression powerful and the scene aesthetically compelling. Those aren't good reasons, good enough reasons? Apparently not to you, but I assure you, they are good reasons to many, many people, including many who are not "photographers". I can think of dozens of good reasons who someone would want to take a photo of someone else's child, whether during sports, music, dance, drama, school, recreation, or the street. Methinks your imagination is too limited. And it's not only me. Many, many photographers, including great ones, have taken photos that included ones of other people's children. You may not ever have reason to take any photos of anyone else's children, and that's fine. I would encourage you therefore not to waste your time with such photos. But plenty of other people do have good reasons, and can justify them, for taking such photos. Hence, your claim of an ethical issue here seems still undefended. By the way, please don't take someone's memory card. If you do that to a pro photographer, you are interfering illegally and unethically in their work. They could sue you for everything you have, not to mention the criminal penalties you would suffer. It's not worth it. And it's not justifiable.

04-19-2016, 02:43 PM	#28
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,873	Or am I a pervert for this? And if I'm not, how would you have known while I was taking it?

04-19-2016, 02:44 PM	#29
cpk Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 640	Originally posted by bakerking31 But the fact that it's outside the normal behavior raises questions of the reasons for photographing which again brings us back to the ethical question. It's outside your normal behaviour, but not necessarily mine or someone else's. http://www.charking.com/galleries/200-harbourfront-toronto-victoria-day-weekend-2012/

04-19-2016, 02:49 PM	#30
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Originally posted by sholtzma By the way, please don't take someone's memory card. If you do that to a pro photographer, you are interfering illegally and unethically in their work. They could sue you for everything you have, not to mention the criminal penalties you would suffer. It's not worth it. And it's not justifiable. I live in the US ... You can only sue for actual damages, which would be the cost of the sd card. You may think otherwise and in some very rare cases you can sue for more, but take a law class and you will see you can only sue for actual damages in most cases. Obviously this is a photography website so the views are biased a bit. I'm just saying if you go around taking photos of other people's kids you eventually will run into someone like me. I would be willing to bet a large portion of society is like me and would not appreciate a stranger taking photos of their kids. I don't think anything constructive will come from my continued participation in this thread, I've said my opinion and I am in the minority on this site but that doesn't mean I am in the minority overall. If you took a poll of critics and asked what their favorite movie was that movie probably isn't going to be the same as if you asked the general public the same question.