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.
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!
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!
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.
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?
I asked each one of them and they had no answer. some stuttered about it being a free country, others turned and ran.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Can you provide any of these pictures? I'm not believing this.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
You have right to assume worst and so on just as much everyone has right to take pictures in public
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
there's absolutely no need to hover around a group of kids unless you are with them.
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.
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.