[Murfy]

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.

Exactly, they are most likely to be living next to you, or related to you, or be an 'upstanding' community leader. They are going to live in a house like yours, down the street, and seem like a 'normal' person. They probably will not have any outward appearance of being a photographer. They will be working with children.

There is another local case where someone took heads of photos and put them on other children for child pornography, a sub gym teacher. He used yearbook photos.

But back to the original post. There is nothing unethical with taking photos of people on the street, like I said I have my fears, but they are my problem because of 100% my insecurities, they are silly fears and highly unlikely to happen. Maybe I will be a meme, maybe my daughter's photo will be stolen and used in an overseas. You just don't know. Maybe right now, one of us here (or someone we know) is on google maps! (my mom is!)

---

Last edited by Murfy; 04-19-2016 at 03:12 PM.

[mattt]

in this world of plastic people and plastic monuments (really - 3D printing of ruins?) - Image is everything.

Even candids of work colleague's have resulted in heated discussion.
"you cant take/share a photo of me because I might not like the result, or even worse someone might say nasty things about me"

The epidemic of hating on street photographers corresponds with an increase of social image awareness and the sculpted social presence

[gifthorse]

Is he gone yet?!?! Ay carumba!

[Sagitta]

Exactly, they are most likely to be living next to you, or related to you, or be an 'upstanding' community leader. They are going to live in a house like yours, down the street, and seem like a 'normal' person. They probably will not have any outward appearance of being a photographer. They will be working with children.

There is another local case where someone took heads of photos and put them on other children for child pornography, a sub gym teacher. He used yearbook photos.

But back to the original post. There is nothing unethical with taking photos of people on the street, like I said I have my fears, but they are my problem because of 100% my insecurities, they are silly fears and highly unlikely to happen. Maybe I will be a meme, maybe my daughter's photo will be stolen and used in an overseas. You just don't know. Maybe right now, one of us here (or someone we know) is on google maps! (my mom is!)

FWIW, in most states if you assault (and yes, you wouldbe commiting assualt) someone to take their card from their camera, you could wind up hospitalized or worse. In many states that would be legal grounds for someone to shoot you dead if they thought that their life was in danger.

I hate taking street photos I get way, way too self conscious about it personally. Its not to say it never happens, but generally speaking we're talking a longish lens so I can shoot from across the street as opposed to in your face with a wide angle.

This of course begs the question of which is more questionable - shoving a 28mm in someone's face and shooting or standing a block away with a 300mm.

[Murfy]

FWIW, in most states if you assault (and yes, you wouldbe commiting assualt) someone to take their card from their camera, you could wind up hospitalized or worse. In many states that would be legal grounds for someone to shoot you dead if they thought that their life was in danger.
.

good point, maybe the person in the thread who threatens to take a camera card might think twice about forcibly taking a card in states with conceal carry. is it worth your life? the person is assuming they will walk away with a card and slap on the wrist and a small fine, because they protected their child from a non existent threat. Maybe they won't walk away at all. I am not saying I advocate violence but if someone attacked me, how would I know they wanted my card, my camera or my body? just like they are assuming I am taking a photo because I am a pervert, I am assuming they are attacking me because they have violent mental issues and may kill me.

It's a shame really, if street photographers are saying 'perverts and child pornographers are not using dlsr or slr in public places' maybe people who disagree should listen and learn and not shut down the conversation because they feel it's not constructive. That is not a way to actually help the fight against child pornography.

I am aware this topic took an off turn, but if someone assumes that all photographers are perverts if they take a picture of a child in public, I am going to do my best to help correct this fallacy. I am not even a street photographer, but I will always defend it.

[bigdavephoto]

FWIW, in most states if you assault (and yes, you wouldbe commiting assualt) someone to take their card from their camera, you could wind up hospitalized or worse. In many states that would be legal grounds for someone to shoot you dead if they thought that their life was in danger.

I hate taking street photos I get way, way too self conscious about it personally. Its not to say it never happens, but generally speaking we're talking a longish lens so I can shoot from across the street as opposed to in your face with a wide angle.

This of course begs the question of which is more questionable - shoving a 28mm in someone's face and shooting or standing a block away with a 300mm.

That is what I was going to say. Someone with a camera might also be packing a gun on there hip. If someone try's to take the camera and remove the memory card, that would give the camera owner the right to protect him self/ her self up to and including pulling a gun.

[sholtzma]

I live in the US too. If you are going to cite the law, know the law. When you take the SD card (or CF card) of a pro photographer, you risk doing more than stealing a $20 card. For one thing, you deprive the photographer of access to the images on that card, which could be very costly to the photographer. You also might endanger the images on the card, which the photographer uses to make a living. And you might prevent the photographer from taking photos, which might interfere with her work. These are potentially damages worth much more than the cost of the card. But don't take my word for it, internet tough guy. Go ahead and try it. See what happens in court. Then come back here and let us know who was correct and how much you got sued for.

You claimed there was an ethical issue. You didn't specify what that issue was, leaving me to guess 3 possibilities, which you never clarified. You didn't defend your (vague) claim that there was an ethical issue. You are essentially saying that, simply, you don't like the practice of photographers taking photos of children in public. You are welcome to your dislike of that practice. But your dislike does not translate into an ethical claim. At least, you sure haven't shown us how it does. I am interested in learning what is ethically wrong about this practice, because I teach (among other subjects) ethics. Yet, you seem to have stormed away in a huff.

Then you resort to saying that most ordinary people (non-photographers) side with you and that we are biased in favor of the photographer. This, even though I just pointed out to you just some of the many ways that ordinary people a) take photos of other people's children, and b) do not mind or even ask for others to take photos of their own children. Hardly sounds like you are in the majority; if anything, it sounds as if you are in the tiny minority. Even at the park where the two parents accosted me, they were the only parents (out of many there) who indicated any problem with people taking photos of their children.

My best advice to you, given your belligerent attitude toward photographers taking unwanted photos of your children, would be for you simply to walk away with your children in such a circumstance. Do not accost the photographer; do not take her SD card; do not attack the photographer. Just indicate your displeasure and leave. I can't imagine any photographer then wanting to continue to try to take any photos of you or your children. Sadly, given your "I'm-right-and-I'll-do-whatever-the-hell-I-want-to" attitude, I doubt you'll take my advice. But I had to try....

[THoog]

"Stand your ground" incidents occurred to me, as well.

It's a shame really, if street photographers are saying 'perverts and child pornographers are not using dlsr or slr in public places' maybe people who disagree should listen and learn and not shut down the conversation because they feel it's not constructive. That is not a way to actually help the fight against child pornography.

I don't intend to wander into politics, but we've seen the same sort of irrational fear in other areas post-9/11. The one time I was ever hassled for having a camera was because I was using a "pro camera" (a K100D with a kit lens) to take a picture of a picturesque bridge in a very touristy area - as if a terrorist would use a DSLR to photograph said bridge from a mile away, when they could get more detailed pictures from Google in a matter of seconds. The problem is, we don't know what a child predator looks like, just like we don't know what a terrorist looks like - but we DO know what a big camera looks like, and it makes us feel better to do SOMETHING, even a wrong and useless something, to fight back against the faceless threat.

[Winder]

Anything in public view is fair game. People who dress like a spectacle know what they are doing. They are exhibitionists playing their roll and when they get mad and act out they are still being exhibitionists. I had some drunk guy who I think that he thought I was taking pictures of his wife and approached me. I was at a medieval arts festival and there were a lot of great costumes. I switched my EOS-3 to my left hand and put my right hand in my pocket and turned to walkaway from the guy and he grabbed me to try and turn me back around. I had a small can of mace (this was before pepper spray) in my right pocket and sprayed the cousin-grinder right in the open mouth. He pretty much inhaled the full shot. I then took several pictures of the little SOB turning purple and trying to breath and walked away.

[UncleVanya]

In Europe they are much more paranoid about pictures of children than here. I don't advocate that people must get permission despite what I may have seemed to say earlier. I do ask myself most of the time.

As a kid I took more candid pics of kids than I do now. I have been asked many times not to post pics of people's kids. Infants even!

[THoog]

As a kid I took more candid pics of kids than I do now. I have been asked many times not to post pics of people's kids. Infants even!

I think that just shows how a natural healthy caution (protecting one's offspring, avoiding spiders, snakes, or the dark) can turn into an irrational phobia. I avoid taking pictures of strangers or children, just because I personally feel it's impolite to do so without permission. If I'm in a public place and they are in the shot I was going to take, I try to compose it so that they are in the background, are silhouetted, or have their backs to me, or are otherwise "anonymized". This is why I will never be a good street photographer.

[wombat2go]

I was sitting in an airline lounge recently and in walked a bozo with a camera who started making a video.
He focussed the thing on myself, as I was sitting alone having a snack, and the place was otherwise nearly empty.
I did not feel comfortable at all, of course.

[Skodadriver]

I remember when people, especially children, would clamour to have their photograph taken. Well this was half a century ago in Kenya when my father had a Miranda that he used to let me play with as a 10 year old. Maybe it was my age then. Things change and now I find myself a little averse to having a camera round my neck in public and a little unwilling to talk to children or strangers with children.
Like some reactions to smoking in public, the people around seem to be suspicious of what I am doing. Trying to enslave their souls and give them cancer maybe.
I doubt L.S.Lowry had misgivings about going out into the streets and painting scenes with what apparently are people in them. Not knocking his paintings. Wish I owned a few, I might sell one and get a K-1 and a couple of really good Pentax lenses. To use in my own home of course.
On the other hand, abuse is reported so often nowadays so perhaps this will keep abusers off the streets. I wonder if it works on Politicians, what with the local elections coming up and the in/out of Europe debate.

[mattb123]

Also if someone indicates they don't want their photo taken (or their kids) I would try to honor that. But if I'm on a shoot and you or your kids are a part of what I'm shooting, you may end up in some photos. I have had very little trouble like that but maybe it's because I live in a smaller community where people know each other.

[sholtzma]

I would have been happy to talk with the angry parents, and maybe I would have agreed to wait until their children were no longer at the booth. The shot I was aiming for could have included any set of kids, after all, and it would have repeated itself because the magic act was repeated for different groups of kids. But they didn't even want to know what I was doing, who I was. All they wanted to do was impose their unrealistically negative view of life on people around them. There aren't evil people behind every bush. But I'm sure that the media they listened to, the church they went to, the social group they belonged to, believed in the constant presence of evil. Sad, really. The people I felt worst for were their children, who would have been influenced by that evil-is-everywhere attitude of their parents.