Re: Photos of Children
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 06:11:54AM +, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't assume anything John, I was giving a worst case scenario, an extreme example to prove my point, which was that there's a difference between legally right (and wrong) and morally right (and wrong). I wasn't intentionally singling you out, Frank. You could have been the first poster to put kiddy porn into play, but there were several other later posts that took that possibility and ran with it. I wasn't making any connection between photographers who point their cameras at children and pornographers. Hell I would guess I take as many photos of children without the permission of their parents as anyone on this list. I guess that being the naive guy that I am I could not understand this parent getting upset enough to contact Google if this was all innocent. I should have known better. Cheers, frank Maybe you're lucky (or maybe you're a less conspicuous photographer than those of us who do less 'street' photography). I hardly ever take shots with identifiable members of the public in them, but several times I've had people object (although I've probably had about the same number ask me if I could send them a copy of the picture). Most of the time the objectors have been parents (except for the shop owner who thought I was photographing the front of her restaurant as a guide for terrorists, or something). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn. You really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com Date: December 30, 2011 5:29:15 AM EST To: google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com Subject: Photos of Children Reply-To: Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com I have been invited to view an album of photos on Google+ featuring my children (both under 13). I did not give permission for the photos to be used online (or in fact for the photos to be taken in the first place). Is it possible to get them removed from Google+? I have asked the owner but they are refusing. As should be clear, this was posted to the Google+ discussion list. Am I correct in understanding that permission was not required in either case--in taking the photos or posting them? Regards, -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA eew...@bellsouth.net A man should be in the world as though he were not in it so that it will be no worse because of his life. - Wendell Berry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period. After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner. Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that. The explanation was that it is not good to post pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, - and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard, or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...) The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored. Igor Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011 David Parsons wrote: People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn. You really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as individuals, certainly. had I been the photograpehr I would have respected the parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the photos actually does get it removed. And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo I'd remove it. As of pics of me, I wouldn't ask that of anyone myself unless it were truly gross and I was identified. I had to laugh , tho, when we did PDML boston and no one took a photo of me facing the camera - I think someone overstated my dislike of certain photos in the past (more my dislike of hte photographer) (and it wasnt Christine or David). But it is a bit scary out there these days for kids - too many nasty things. ann On 12/30/2011 13:56, Igor Roshchin wrote: Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period. After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner. Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that. The explanation was that it is not good to post pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, - and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard, or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...) The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored. Igor Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011 David Parsons wrote: People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn. You really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 01:42:27PM -0500, David Parsons wrote: People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn. You really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side. Oh, it doesn't have top be their own spawn. There's knee-jerk reaction to the combination of children and photographers. That's even apparent here, amongst folk who should know better. We don't have any information about what the photographs in question are, where they were taken, or anything of the kind. And yet there are posts here all too ready to assume that these are kiddy porn galleries, and that the photographer must be some kind of sick pervert. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family. Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event, or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children? Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote: Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family. Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event, or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children? Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them? Also... that an invitation to view the images was issued might indicate that the gallery isn't entirely public... only to be seen by select folks? Slightly tangential to the point, but perhaps a mitigating factor... :) -c -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
As a matter of policy, we don't publish identifiable pictures of our children, or their names. They're not hidden very deep, someone aggressive and knowledgeable with search engines could dig it out. Partly because I'm a semi-public figure and reasonably paranoid. Partly because we believe strongly that people have the right to construct and control their own online identity, within reason. Every school year we have to mark up the information release form telling the school not to publish pictures with names online. If someone took pictures of them and published them *with their identity* I'd go after them pretty hard with whatever legal/PR clubs I could find. I'm not sure I'd have much legal standing, but I'd try hard anyhow. -T On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Christine Nielsen ch...@inielsen.net wrote: On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote: Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family. Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event, or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children? Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them? Also... that an invitation to view the images was issued might indicate that the gallery isn't entirely public... only to be seen by select folks? Slightly tangential to the point, but perhaps a mitigating factor... :) -c -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
This reminds me of a story I saw recently about the early days of HIV/AIDS - some kid in Virginia was required to wear a bubble to school to protect the other kids. Today it is photographers who are dangerous and many want to put a bubble around us to protect themselves and their kids. I think the protection of kids is way over the top and reflects a media which thrives on drama and scary stuff. The overwhelming majority of child abductions are about parental custody disputes, not about weird strangers. Same story with sexual assault - mostly a within-family issue. And the concept of parents protecting their children from vaccines!?! Giving everyone a trophy whether they win lose or draw? Driving kids to school when there are perfectly good streets to bicycle on and sidewalks to walk on? Jeesh! All part of a pattern which reflects what seems to me to be extreme overprotection. I was browsing through Christine's summary of her 2011 PAW and noticed this shot: http://www.caguila.com/pawyear2011/content/pawweek43halloweenmaid_large.html As I recall her comment when first posting this, and based on the caption, I am quite sure she did not know this child, nor did she ask permission of the parents to take the shot and to post it. I would have done the same without a second thought, and I would not honor a request by a parent to take the image down once posted. stan On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as individuals, certainly. had I been the photograpehr I would have respected the parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the photos actually does get it removed. And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo I'd remove it. As of pics of me, I wouldn't ask that of anyone myself unless it were truly gross and I was identified. I had to laugh , tho, when we did PDML boston and no one took a photo of me facing the camera - I think someone overstated my dislike of certain photos in the past (more my dislike of hte photographer) (and it wasnt Christine or David). But it is a bit scary out there these days for kids - too many nasty things. ann On 12/30/2011 13:56, Igor Roshchin wrote: Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period. After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner. Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that. The explanation was that it is not good to post pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, - and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard, or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...) The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored. Igor Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011 David Parsons wrote: People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn. You really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
I agree with many of you that the concern about the kiddy porn stuff is a bit over the top... My point is that anyone whose photo has been taken should be asked if they mind being published if it is possible to do so and certainly if you take a photo straight on. And if you can get a models release, do it. It's shooting for stock that got me in the habit of never taking photos of people facing me that I didn't know personally and knew they wouldnt mind or getting a model's release. And I try never to show anyone to disadvantage, looking silly, homely, or whatever. that TV show Candid Camera always upset me - don't like people being made to look rediculous. ok - off soapbox ann On 12/30/2011 17:01, Stan Halpin wrote: This reminds me of a story I saw recently about the early days of HIV/AIDS - some kid in Virginia was required to wear a bubble to school to protect the other kids. Today it is photographers who are dangerous and many want to put a bubble around us to protect themselves and their kids. I think the protection of kids is way over the top and reflects a media which thrives on drama and scary stuff. The overwhelming majority of child abductions are about parental custody disputes, not about weird strangers. Same story with sexual assault - mostly a within-family issue. And the concept of parents protecting their children from vaccines!?! Giving everyone a trophy whether they win lose or draw? Driving kids to school when there are perfectly good streets to bicycle on and sidewalks to walk on? Jeesh! All part of a pattern which reflects what seems to me to be extreme overprotection. I was browsing through Christine's summary of her 2011 PAW and noticed this shot: http://www.caguila.com/pawyear2011/content/pawweek43halloweenmaid_large.html As I recall her comment when first posting this, and based on the caption, I am quite sure she did not know this child, nor did she ask permission of the parents to take the shot and to post it. I would have done the same without a second thought, and I would not honor a request by a parent to take the image down once posted. stan On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as individuals, certainly. had I been the photograpehr I would have respected the parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the photos actually does get it removed. And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo I'd remove it. As of pics of me, I wouldn't ask that of anyone myself unless it were truly gross and I was identified. I had to laugh , tho, when we did PDML boston and no one took a photo of me facing the camera - I think someone overstated my dislike of certain photos in the past (more my dislike of hte photographer) (and it wasnt Christine or David). But it is a bit scary out there these days for kids - too many nasty things. ann On 12/30/2011 13:56, Igor Roshchin wrote: Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period. After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner. Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that. The explanation was that it is not good to post pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, - and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard, or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...) The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored. Igor Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011 David Parsons wrote: People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn. You really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
On Dec 30, 2011, at 3:58 PM, John Francis wrote: We don't have any information about what the photographs in question are, where they were taken, or anything of the kind. And yet there are posts here all too ready to assume that these are kiddy porn galleries, and that the photographer must be some kind of sick pervert. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family. Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event, or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children? Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them? Yeah, it's kind of hard to imagine a porn photographer inviting a parent to view shots of his or her children on the site, as the author of the post I forwarded said he had been. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA eew...@bellsouth.net A writer is a person for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people. - Thomas Mann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
Ann, Several years ago, I brought an album with photos taken at a music festival to the next one, so that people can see the photos. Several people said: Great album, all wonderful photos, except for my photograph, could you please remove it? A similar situation repeated the next time... If I removed all the photos as requested, the album would have been half-empty. I usually do respect when people indicate to me that they don't want to get their photos taken. However, most of the time I ignore requests like those described above, unless there is a good reason that I hadn't thought about while selecting photos for printing/inclusion to the gallery. Ironically, recently, I had a dancer who stopped in the middle of a social dance (tango), walked to me across the floor (to the edge of the dance floor), and asked not to take any more pictures of her. (This happened after I had taken a few within the previous couple minutes.) I was surprised by the way it was done, but stopped taking her photos. When I posted the photos I took (including the photos of that person taken prior to this request), - she contacted me asking if she can get some prints. She also apologized for her reaction explaining it by the fact that she did not like photos of her that other people had taken before. After she's got her prints from me, she came to me at the next dance event and told me that in the future, I may take as many photos of her as I want. Now, with the children, I understand that the situation can be a bit more sensitive. Being a father of a little girl, I understand why parents can be [over]protective. But I think a lot of present paranoia is due to the media. I don't think that in general people's behavior has drastically changed recently, but rather people became more aware of what happens. So, when I get to photograph other children, I often ask the parents if they mind that. But then sometimes it's just not practical, say as in this case: http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8543.html or this one: http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8918.html . :-) Igor Fri Dec 30 14:54:04 EST 2011 Ann Sanfedele wrote: I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as individuals, certainly. had I been the photograpehr I would have respected the parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the photos actually does get it removed. And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo I'd remove it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
On 12/30/2011 17:59, Igor Roshchin wrote: Ironically, recently, I had a dancer who stopped in the middle of a social dance (tango), walked to me across the floor (to the edge of the dance floor), and asked not to take any more pictures of her. (This happened after I had taken a few within the previous couple minutes.) I was surprised by the way it was done, but stopped taking her photos. When I posted the photos I took (including the photos of that person taken prior to this request), - she contacted me asking if she can get some prints. She also apologized for her reaction explaining it by the fact that she did not like photos of her that other people had taken before. After she's got her prints from me, she came to me at the next dance event and told me that in the future, I may take as many photos of her as I want. I like that story :-) Now, with the children, I understand that the situation can be a bit more sensitive. Being a father of a little girl, I understand why parents can be [over]protective. But I think a lot of present paranoia is due to the media. I don't think that in general people's behavior has drastically changed recently, but rather people became more aware of what happens. So, when I get to photograph other children, I often ask the parents if they mind that. But then sometimes it's just not practical, say as in this case: http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8543.html Well in this case (above) you'd be safe because you can't see their full faces or this one: http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8918.html . :-) Igor so I guess that's your wife? or a friend? ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
Fri Dec 30 21:16:07 EST 2011 Ann Sanfedele wrote: So, when I get to photograph other children, I often ask the parents if they mind that. But then sometimes it's just not practical, say as in this case: http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8543.html Well in this case (above) you'd be safe because you can't see their full faces or this one: http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8918.html . :-) Igor so I guess that's your wife? or a friend? ann None of the above. Just a well grown-up kid :-) (actually, one of the DJs at a tango festival.). ... who didn't mind being photographed, and her parents were not available for questioning. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photos of Children
I didn't assume anything John, I was giving a worst case scenario, an extreme example to prove my point, which was that there's a difference between legally right (and wrong) and morally right (and wrong). I wasn't making any connection between photographers who point their cameras at children and pornographers. Hell I would guess I take as many photos of children without the permission of their parents as anyone on this list. I guess that being the naive guy that I am I could not understand this parent getting upset enough to contact Google if this was all innocent. I should have known better. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: John Francis jo...@panix.com Sent: December 30, 2011 12/30/11 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Photos of Children On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 01:42:27PM -0500, David Parsons wrote: People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn. You really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side. Oh, it doesn't have top be their own spawn. There's knee-jerk reaction to the combination of children and photographers. That's even apparent here, amongst folk who should know better. We don't have any information about what the photographs in question are, where they were taken, or anything of the kind. And yet there are posts here all too ready to assume that these are kiddy porn galleries, and that the photographer must be some kind of sick pervert. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family. Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event, or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children? Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
