It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ticketed For Eating Doughnuts In A Brooklyn Playground

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I have mixed emotions. #1 photographs of kids can be harmless and artisitic, and I believe everyone should have a right to photograph kids in a part. I mean look at Norman Rockwell's work!


I deal with plenty of artists. Here's how an artist would approach the same situation.

they would walk over and ask if they could photograph your children. If they produced any work with your child's image, without the parent's written consent, they'd be liable for all kinds of legal action.


Originally posted by getreadyalready

But #2 as a father, I would not expect any police intervention, I would just turn my camera back on the suspects, introduce myself, and if anything seemed suspicious I would also get pictures of their license plates, or ask for their identification, or follow them back to their lair!


Funny how every time I whipped the cell out to snap a photo of these so called, innocent photgraphers, they all covered up and took off. If they were all innocently trying to take pictures of children playing, why would they be afraid to have their own picture taken.


I'm not saying every photographer has evil intent. On the contrary, I'm sure there are a few who don't. Since I don't know which is which, and I don't want my kids' images taken by anyone I don't know, I assume the worst with all of them. It's the only way to ensure my kids's safety.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
ahhh, America, Land of the Free .... at least so were we told when we were kids, and that America was a country that everybody should aspire to go to. How glad I am that I chose a different life-path.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Here's how an artist would approach the same situation.

they would walk over and ask if they could photograph your children. If they produced any work with your child's image, without the parent's written consent, they'd be liable for all kinds of legal action.


I've had that exact thing happen to me twice. Once we were at our community swimming pool and a man approached me and asked if the two kids I was with were mine. He then asked if he could take photos of them in the pool for an advertising agency that our community had hired. When I said yes he then asked me to sign a release form.

Second time we were at the Dallas Arboretum and a random guy asked to take photos of our kids. Again he had a release form he wanted us to sign and even gave us a link to his website and said we could get the photos later if we wanted them for free. (And we did get them. He did a good job)

It would be different if some guy just started talking photos of my kids.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Photographers are also supposed to ask parents permission and for them to sign a model release if they are legitimate. I had to help my daughter create a model release form for her photography. It protects everyone. The parent has the info on the photographer. If they're running, they're up to no good.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


why would anyone want to take a picture of my son playing with his friends? Why would a 50 something year old man show up in an area that is gated and reserved for the school, children of said school and their parents, set up a tripod with a 3 foot lens, and start snapping pictures of strangers' kids?


If it makes a good picture why not? I would. And what does the "50 year something" have to do with anything? Only young people can be photographers these days?



I asked each one of them and they had no answer. some stuttered about it being a free country, others turned and ran.


Yeah and they were right too. As for running I doubt that even happened. If it did then why do you assume it's a perv making a run for it anyway?



Originally posted by Crakeur
I deal with plenty of artists. Here's how an artist would approach the same situation. they would walk over and ask if they could photograph your children. If they produced any work with your child's image, without the parent's written consent, they'd be liable for all kinds of legal action.


That's actually not true at all. Artist wouldn't ask for written consent. A commercial photographer would. Street photography is not commercial work even if you sell the pieces.



Funny how every time I whipped the cell out to snap a photo of these so called, innocent photgraphers, they all covered up and took off. If they were all innocently trying to take pictures of children playing, why would they be afraid to have their own picture taken.


Can you provide any of these pictures? I'm not believing this.



I'm not saying every photographer has evil intent. On the contrary, I'm sure there are a few who don't. Since I don't know which is which, and I don't want my kids' images taken by anyone I don't know, I assume the worst with all of them. It's the only way to ensure my kids's safety.


You have right to assume worst and so on just as much everyone has right to take pictures in public.
edit on 9/6/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I'm with Crak!


2nd to say that you can't spin yourself out of being creepy just because you're an "artist"... I mean photographer.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If it makes a good picture why not? I would. And what does the "50 year something" have to do with anything? Only young people can be photographers these days?

because there's no rational reason why someone would want pictures of kids they don't know, unless they were celebs and they wanted to sell the photos to the tabloids. The old man thing was part of his description. that old man was there the day before trying the same thing.


Originally posted by PsykoOpsYeah and they were right too. As for running I doubt that even happened. If it did then why do you assume it's a perv making a run for it anyway?

Because the folks that wanted pictures of the trees or the buildings in the background said so. If someone had a rational reason for taking pictures in that spot, why would they run when confronted? Most of the runners didn't even wait for verbal contact. They saw a father coming towards them, grabbed their gear and split.

You might not find that strange but every single father in the park that day saw it as creepy and strange.




Originally posted by PsykoOps
That's actually not true at all. Artist wouldn't ask for written consent. A commercial photographer would. Street photography is not commercial work even if you sell the pieces.

you cannot use someone's image to profit without getting their consent. If you do, you can be sued and you will lose a share of your revenue as a result. That's the law here in the states. Might be different where you are.



Originally posted by PsykoOps
Can you provide any of these pictures? I'm not believing this.


No, because every time I took out my cell and went to take a picture, they turned and left. They were rather clear in their desire to not be photographed. If it's ok for them to take pictures of my child, why is it not ok for me to take their picture?


Originally posted by PsykoOps
You have right to assume worst and so on just as much everyone has right to take pictures in public


I never said they didn't have a right to take pictures in public. I said they didn't have a right to take pictures of my kids without my permission or, anyone else's kids for that matter.

You can try and defend this all you want but, as a parent, I will do anything and everything to keep my kids sheltered from people who have no problem harming a child for their own benefit. I really don't see how my not wanting pictures of my kids to be on some stranger's computer seems wrong to you.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
because there's no rational reason why someone would want pictures of kids they don't know, unless they were celebs and they wanted to sell the photos to the tabloids. The old man thing was part of his description. that old man was there the day before trying the same thing.


Rational? Like it would be a good picture perhaps? That's all the rational you need. Not only that anyone who happens to take pictures is under no oblication to explain their rationale to you or anyone else unless authorities get involved.



Because the folks that wanted pictures of the trees or the buildings in the background said so. If someone had a rational reason for taking pictures in that spot, why would they run when confronted? Most of the runners didn't even wait for verbal contact. They saw a father coming towards them, grabbed their gear and split.


Or perhaps they had diarrea and had to run to the loo? You're just jumping to conclusions here.



You might not find that strange but every single father in the park that day saw it as creepy and strange.


Creepy is in your head. That's only an impression in your own head. You either have to be a psychic or see what the guy does with the images to know why he was there.



you cannot use someone's image to profit without getting their consent. If you do, you can be sued and you will lose a share of your revenue as a result. That's the law here in the states. Might be different where you are.


I know what the law in the US and here is. You can use someones image in art as much as you desire. You do not own any copyrights or any other kinds of rights to your likeness in that matter.



No, because every time I took out my cell and went to take a picture, they turned and left. They were rather clear in their desire to not be photographed. If it's ok for them to take pictures of my child, why is it not ok for me to take their picture?


So everytime someone had a phone in hand they just turned and left? They must've been in and out continously. It is absolutely your right to take their picture in public and even follow them to their vehicles and take a picture of their license plates for good measure.



I never said they didn't have a right to take pictures in public. I said they didn't have a right to take pictures of my kids without my permission or, anyone else's kids for that matter.


You're just pure lying here. They have all the right to take any pictures in public. They do not need your or anyone elses permission.



You can try and defend this all you want but, as a parent, I will do anything and everything to keep my kids sheltered from people who have no problem harming a child for their own benefit. I really don't see how my not wanting pictures of my kids to be on some stranger's computer seems wrong to you.


I understand if you dont desire some perv snatching a picture of your child for pleasure. However you're making it out to be as that includes anyone who takes pictures of children in public. That is just your assumption.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


You guys might find this of interest.

Candid Photos Information


Sell Photos of Candid Subjects: Consent Required? Candid photography offers you many opportunities to make iconic images. Selling those images, on the other hand, can raise many legal questions for a street photographer with a stack of photos of strangers. Foremost among those questions is whether or not you need the subject's permission to sell the photographs, and the answer is, it depends.

A photo's intended use is the primary governing factor that determines the need for a subect's permission before profiting from their image. Usage falls under several broad categories: fine art, journalism or editorial, and commercial, each of which has their own set of rules regarding model permission or releases.

Fine Art If you intend to exhibit your images as fine art, you do not need a release. Once exception to this is if the image is of a minor, in which case you would need the parents' permission. (emphasis mine) Selling prints of those images at a show is also generally considered legal. However, if you intend to make posters of the prints to advertise your show, you are using the images for commercial use and would need to have a model release.


The law clearly states in this case that anything having to do with a minor's image needs the parents permission. To do otherwise is against the law. So, even if these guys intentions were pure (doubtful), they are still breaking the law.


Editorial Use In general, you do not need any model release for photos taken in a public place (where the subject has no expectation of privacy) or for photos that are considered 'news'.


I feel the parents in question have a right to expect privacy. A grade school outing is hardly newsworthy.


Commercial Use The moment you license a photograph to sell anything, it falls under the heading of commercial use (even if you are licensing it to yourself), and you will need a model release. If the photograph is of a child, you will need one and preferably both parents' permission to use the image commercially. Because of the legal risks associated with using photos of people, increasing numbers of publishers are asking photographers to submit model releases, even with photos intended for editorial use.


Once again, obtaining the parent's permission is mandatory when photographing kids. That's why, despite the fact she is not professional, my daughter gets her subjects to sign a release. It protects both the photographer and the subject of the photography.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


first off, if you take my picture and make a poster of it, and that poster brings in a million in sales, you can be sure that the US courts will find that I am entitled to a piece of those sales, unless, prior to your using my image, you obtained a release from me.

as to you thinking it's ok to snap pictures of 6 year olds playing, when you haven't a clue who they are, come to NYC, set up your tripod in central park, and start snapping. you will be confronted by parents who a wary of these things. Based on the attitude of the fathers that day in the park, you'd wind up having at least one of the fathers arrested for assault but you'd find no witnesses, you'd find that the cops won't care much about your plight either as they are well aware of the situation with these predators trolling the city parks.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
seems taking pictures of other people's children is frowned upon in the UK as well as the states.


He has now admitted taking three photographs of children playing on a trampoline in Hull and another image of children playing in the snow in the city.


www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk...

so, yeah, everyone taking pics of strangers kids should be allowed to do it.

and more on this
www.thisislondon.co.uk...



edit on 9-6-2011 by Crakeur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


This might be a cultural difference. In Missouri where I am from or in rural Florida here, people probably wouldn't even notice a photographer. If they did notice, they would assume it was just a hobbiest or wildlife observor.

In reality, there really is no park here busy enough that a photographer could walk up and encounter large groups of kids or parents.

I am guessing the NY response is important and probably appropriate for the area, but things are different in the rural areas.

ETA:
When I went to NY, people thought I was crazy for speaking to them. I got a whole lot of looks from people that basically glared, "who are you, and why are you talking to me."
So, I can definitely believe they wouldn't take kindly to someone snapping pics of kids. On the flipside, if NYer comes to the country, they are immediately seen as rude and arrogant, because they don't make small talk or greet every person that comes and goes from a room.
edit on 9-6-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal
 

The law clearly states in this case that anything having to do with a minor's image needs the parents permission. To do otherwise is against the law. So, even if these guys intentions were pure (doubtful), they are still breaking the law.


Can you show me the law instead of someones opinion on it?


Originally posted by Crakeur
 


first off, if you take my picture and make a poster of it, and that poster brings in a million in sales, you can be sure that the US courts will find that I am entitled to a piece of those sales, unless, prior to your using my image, you obtained a release from me.


Yes because that is commercial use. That's exactly what I said.



as to you thinking it's ok to snap pictures of 6 year olds playing, when you haven't a clue who they are, come to NYC, set up your tripod in central park, and start snapping. you will be confronted by parents who a wary of these things. Based on the attitude of the fathers that day in the park, you'd wind up having at least one of the fathers arrested for assault but you'd find no witnesses, you'd find that the cops won't care much about your plight either as they are well aware of the situation with these predators trolling the city parks.


I'll keep that in mind. I've met people like you and they always end up digging a hole for themselves so deep they cant crawl back out of it. If they really are so stupid there that they take the extra step then it's really sad for you. By the same logic it would be ok for me to beat you up because you might be a bad parent, abuser or even molester just by the fact that you have kids.


edit on 9/6/2011 by PsykoOps because: format



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


perhaps but, if you're taking pictures of plant or animal life, there are tons of places in the park to do that. there's very little animal life running around in a field with 125 kids and the only plant life in that same field is grass.

there are areas with gardens and there's a zoo, with an outdoor area for the local wildlife.

there's absolutely no need to hover around a group of kids unless you are with them.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 



there's absolutely no need to hover around a group of kids unless you are with them.


Unless you like the innocent smiles of kids, or the way they are able to pretend and entertain themselves. Maybe you like to watch their unbridaled joy at simple things like a swing? It doesn't have to be sexual?

Sexual predators are a very, very slim minority of the possible observors, and as in all things, the few have ruined it for the many.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
. By the same logic it would be ok for me to beat you up because you might be a bad parent, abuser or even molester just by the fact that you have kids.


I hold no sympathy for anyone who would abuse a child but, in this case, I highly doubt you'd have any reason to think I am anything but a caring, cautious parent.

I'm curious, what would you do with photos of other people's kids? would you also want video of other people's kids? there was plenty of that as well.

tell me what you'd do with them (unless, of course, you're desire to have them is such that mentioning it would be against the Terms and Conditions of the site) because I have yet to hear anyone give a valid reason for taking pictures, or video, of strangers kids. Apparently, the most common use of these photos is photoshopping. Not sure what they do with the video, nor do I want to know. I'm hoping you'd be showing them to your friends, your collection of unknown 5 and 6 year old boys playing in the park. Do you think your friends would find it normal for you to return from the park with 25 or so pictures of young boys running around in a field?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Unless you like the innocent smiles of kids, or the way they are able to pretend and entertain themselves. Maybe you like to watch their unbridaled joy at simple things like a swing? It doesn't have to be sexual?

Sexual predators are a very, very slim minority of the possible observors, and as in all things, the few have ruined it for the many.


but you can see that innocent smile without taking a picture. taking a picture means you want to savor that smile again, at home.

while the actual predators are a very slim minority, I was told that along with the guys taking pictures for themselves, there are also those that take the pictures and then photoshop the faces into other pictures, like that father did with his own daughter.
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Google "photos of kids playing."

If it is not used for commerce then there is no need for release forms. It could just be artistic in nature or hobbyist, or it could even be journalistic.

Watching kids play should be an enjoyable afternoon for anyone. It just seems so odd to me that we would all jump to some conclusion that there is any ill intent or sexual connotation?

But again, I don't live in a city.

ETA:
The guy photoshopping his own daughters likeness onto porn is out of this world. I am speechless about that thread. Just WOW!

edit on 9-6-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
this is a reason why we need to do away with quotas for cops...they do it in EVERY state...whether it be ticketing somebody for the most ridiculous thing or pulling you over and writing you up for something you "supposedly" did...it only gives cops a reason to make everybody and anybody's life a complete pain...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I'm not disagreeing with you on kids at play but, when you take pictures of kids you don't know, so you can look at them, at home, is wrong. plain and simple. it's creepy.

what if you went to a friend's home and his screensaver was a picture of your 6 year old son or 8 year old daughter? worse, what if you happen to see a pile of photos and when you pick them up, they're all of your son, smiling and happy, playing and enjoying the innocence of youth. you wouldn't wonder why this friend of yours has all those photos without your knowing about them? without him asking if he could snap pictures of the innocence of youth at play?




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join