# Shooting Kids in public places



## tecboy (Jul 5, 2013)

When I was in cosplayers convention, I took pictures at children wearing costumes, and parents don't seem to mind.  At public places, I see some photographers shoot kids with one or two photos.  I'm puzzling shooting kids on public places.  The parents may feel uncomfortable.  If I ask their permission and give them a business card, what if they change their mind later and want me to take these photos down from public viewing?  There is no document or contract states I have the right to keep these photos and do whatever I want.  I just want to know what you guys think.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

It's a fascinating relic of older times, I believe. It's not rational at all, but many people feel it very very strongly.


----------



## paigew (Jul 5, 2013)

I would not take photos of strangers children and post them online. Like amolitor said, some people feel very strongly about it. Is that what your asking?


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 5, 2013)

paigew said:


> I would not take photos of strangers children and post them online. Like amolitor said, some people feel very strongly about it. Is that what your asking?



Exactly. Get a model release if you are going to do so.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

Technically they shouldnt be able to stop you from posting the images in a gallery or portfolio. However, the strong emotions are likely to invite legal trouble and complications anyway, which you dont want no matter what.

A model release is best. Otherwise, security by obscurity is next best id say. Go to where the kids are armed with your own kid (offer to babysit for a friend for free if you aren't a parent), and make it look like you are just snapping photos of them. Also an unintimidating lens or camera

If you do use a release, make one just for kids that has more restrictions than a typical adult one to make parents more secure feeling. Only ask for what you know you need instead of what you might ever need.


----------



## Indofred (Jul 5, 2013)

tecboy said:


> When I was in cosplayers convention, I took pictures at children wearing costumes, and parents don't seem to mind.  At public places, I see some photographers shoot kids with one or two photos.  I'm puzzling shooting kids on public places.  The parents may feel uncomfortable.  If I ask their permission and give them a business card, what if they change their mind later and want me to take these photos down from public viewing?  There is no document or contract states I have the right to keep these photos and do whatever I want.  I just want to know what you guys think.



I always wonder about the state of a society when this question arises.
If it's assumed there's a pervert on the loose because you take pictures of what can be seen on any public street; I would be forced to assume, that society is either sick or indoctrinated.


----------



## skieur (Jul 5, 2013)

It is legal to take photos of kids in public places and post or publish them as long as they are not used for advertising purposes.  A contract or release can be taken "the wrong way",...as in what is going on, here?...Why do I need to read and sign material?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jul 5, 2013)

If youre not doing anything wrong then dont worry. But if you have kids and wouldnt want someone to do the same thing the keep that in mind as well.


----------



## skieur (Jul 7, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> If youre not doing anything wrong then dont worry. But if you have kids and wouldnt want someone to do the same thing the keep that in mind as well.



Most people here should be able to ident_ify a serious photographer by how he is shooting.  I certainly can._


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 7, 2013)

skieur said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > If youre not doing anything wrong then dont worry. But if you have kids and wouldnt want someone to do the same thing the keep that in mind as well.
> ...



People here are all photographers... that logic obviously doesnt apply to general public the same way


----------



## Tony S (Jul 7, 2013)

Go ahead and shoot them, just remember they are slower than a running dog so you don't need to lead them as much.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Tony S said:


> Go ahead and shoot them, just remember they are slower than a running dog so you don't need to lead them as much.



That's sick and twisted.. you should never lead people to believe that muzzle velocity and range won't play a role in that!  :lmao:

Sorry...


----------



## Kolia (Jul 10, 2013)

If you feel weird shooting a child in a public space, you basically answer your own question...

As a parent myself, if I saw you shooting pictures with my kids in the frame, I wouldn't mind. If I saw you taking pictures of my kids as the main subject, I'd move in after a few shoots. 

At that point, you'd better start talking to me, identify yourself and explain a bit why you took these shoots.

The legality of it in this case doesn't matter. If I see you as a threat I will make you leave or worst call the authorities on you as a potential sexual predator.

A long post to basically say that if you feel bad about it, it's probably your instinct telling you you are endangering yourself.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

Kolia said:


> If you feel weird shooting a child in a public space, you basically answer your own question...
> 
> As a parent myself, if I saw you shooting pictures with my kids in the frame, I wouldn't mind. If I saw you taking pictures of my kids as the main subject, I'd move in after a few shoots.
> 
> ...



I don't feel weird about it.  I'm concern the nature of the parents.  What feel bad about what? What do you think I'm endangered myself?  I'm not a sexual predator.  I suggest you don't response my thread, ever!


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

On a serious note, you could just ask and offer a few shots to the parents to show some appreciation.  

There often seems to be this barrier that prevents photographers from simply seeking permission and being courteous .. whether it's people or property.


----------



## Tiller (Jul 10, 2013)

tecboy said:


> I don't feel weird about it.  I'm concern the nature of the parents.  What feel bad about what? What do you think I'm endangered myself?  I'm not a sexual predator.  I suggest you don't response my thread, ever!



Calm down man.

Plain and simple. People have been warned so much on t.v. and other avenues that sexual predators are afoot. Which is a good thing for the most part. So if a parent sees a STRANGER taking photos of their child, especially if the photographer is a male, they will naturally be worried.

Just giving my opinion here, I wouldn't do it unless it wasn't normal circumstances. Like if a child was on a pitchers mound, throwing the first pitch at an MLB game. I wouldn't hesitate taking a shot. But just a random kid at the park? No way. As a parent, that would cause way too many alarms going off in my mind.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

Tiller said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > I don't feel weird about it.  I'm concern the nature of the parents.  What feel bad about what? What do you think I'm endangered myself?  I'm not a sexual predator.  I suggest you don't response my thread, ever!
> ...



Well, I don't know what is his problem.  Is it because the jpeg vs raw thing?  Then, he should go to other thread and argue, not here.  Beside, he is not helping.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

As Tiller pointed out.. he was just joining the conversation from the perspective of a parent. I don't think he has a problem, he was just offering his views on the subject.

I'm a cop.. If I see someone standing around taking pictures of kids and it looks to me like the individual isn't associated with them, I'd check it out.

That's not to say a photographer is doing anything wrong, or has bad intentions.. it's just prudent to ask a few questions under those conditions.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> As Tiller pointed out.. he was just joining the conversation from the perspective of a parent. I don't think he has a problem, he was just offering his views on the subject.
> 
> I'm a cop.. If I see someone standing around taking pictures of kids and it looks to me like the individual isn't associated with them, I'd check it out.
> 
> That's not to say a photographer is doing anything wrong, or has bad intentions.. it's just prudent to ask a few questions under those conditions.



I not talking about Tiller.  I'm talking about the other guy, Kolia.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jul 10, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Tiller said:
> 
> 
> > tecboy said:
> ...




he has no problem, he was telling you as a parent how he would feel if you were just ranomly taking photos of his kid, that is the type of responce you will get from a lot of parents if you just start taking photos of there kid, you asked a question how would the parents feel. he answered it and you took offence to it. he helped you a lot actually.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Yes, I know.. that's who I was referring to. Tiller was pointing out that Kolia was just offering the perspective of a parent. I don't believe the intention was to insult or accuse you of anything.

EDIT: I'm assuming of course that Kolia is male .. if not, I apologize. Charlie made me say it....


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

My fault, I removed Kolia from my ingnore list.  Thx for advice Kolia, and the rest of you guys.  

I guess I just got paranoid. What a day.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 10, 2013)

Take the photo, show the parent and say, "Hey, here's my card - I'd love to send you this photo I took so get in touch if you'd like me to."

If they want you to delete it, probably respectful to do so, but a lot of times they're just happy to have photos of their kids


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> On a serious note, you could just ask and offer a few shots to the parents to show some appreciation.
> 
> There often seems to be this barrier that prevents photographers from simply seeking permission and being courteous .. whether it's people or property.



^This! If I am at the park with my Girlfriends grandkids... sometimes I see some other kids I would like to shoot. I ask the parents... and hand them a card. I offer some web images, and get an email address from them if they want. Problem solved! If they say no, then I am careful to exclude those kids from any shots... even if it means missing some shots of the grandkids.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 10, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> Take the photo, show the parent and say, "Hey, here's my card - I'd love to send you this photo I took so get in touch if you'd like me to."
> 
> If they want you to delete it, probably respectful to do so, but a lot of times they're just happy to have photos of their kids




At least from my perspective as both a photographer and parent


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 10, 2013)

I would like to ask a few generalized questions...just to play devils advocate for a moment,  and because i am genuinely curious. 
ALL legalities aside, why take random pictures of strangers and their kids? is it just in the name of "street photography"? Because you legally can?
are they doing something so particularly interesting that it just HAS to be documented for posterity? You don't actually know ANY people with kids  you can practice photography on? At what point does taking pictures of someone in a public area start to become a little weird?
taking pictures of strangers? pics of strangers kids? pics of strangers kids at the beach? kids at the beach in a bikini?
I wonder how different the lines are for people, especially concerning children.  could you justify photographing someones kids at the park but not at the beach or pool?
does HOW the kids are dressed affect the decision?  does intent matter at all? (since the parents cannot determine intent if you do not make contact)
personally speaking, I dislike photographing anyone (as the main subject) without their expressed consent. Although i don't really do street photography, people in front of a building is a little different to me, and i recognize that there are times when NOT getting people in the frame is impossible. 

I can not help but feel that there is SOME semblance of exploitation going on when you take pictures of people without their permission and use those pictures on your portfolio to promote your own business.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> *I can not help but feel that there is SOME semblance of exploitation going on when you take pictures of people without their permission and use those pictures on your portfolio to promote your own business.*




^^^ One of the reasons I don't like a lot of street photography! I always ask permission to shoot, if I see someone I want to shoot. Does that kill spontaneity? Maybe... but I feel better about it.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Ah hell... just be inconspicuous ... shoot the photos from the curb with a giant lens from inside a white van with mostly tinted windows.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Ah hell... just be inconspicuous ... shoot the photos from the curb with a giant lens from inside a white van with mostly tinted windows.




just dont paint "free candy" on the side of the van.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 10, 2013)

Sorry you took my comment the wrong way initially.

Like others said, I was giving you a parents perspective. And the usage of "You" and "Me" was just to facilitate the writing of the post. 

I didn't mean to imply anything bad on the part of the person taking the picture. 

I take my camera to the park too. But my kids are in there playing. And one day I will have a business card type thing to give to other parents.

Is there a fight I'm missing on a RAW vs JPEG topic ?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Yes, I know.. that's who I was referring to. Tiller was pointing out that Kolia was just offering the perspective of a parent. I don't believe the intention was to insult or accuse you of anything.
> 
> EDIT: I'm assuming of course that Kolia is male .. if not, I apologize. Charlie made me say it....



Charlie made you say it? Is that one of the voices in your head? Or is Charlie your "higher power"? (I hate it when Generic Charlie's get blamed for stuff... gotta be Specific!)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Ah hell... just be inconspicuous ... shoot the photos from the curb with a giant lens from inside a white van with mostly tinted windows.



I prefer a Ghillie suit, with facepaint... and the camera mounted on a riflestock.... bugs people more...


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I know.. that's who I was referring to. Tiller was pointing out that Kolia was just offering the perspective of a parent. I don't believe the intention was to insult or accuse you of anything.
> ...



Sometimes I think you ARE a voice inside my head ... we think too much alike. It's a little creepy at times.  Lol


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ShooterJ said:
> ...



Nah.. that just means you is intelligent, good looking and are a godlike stud! (yea.. I know.. stating the obvious!)  :lmao:


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



:lmao:


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > Ah hell... just be inconspicuous ... shoot the photos from the curb with a giant lens from inside a white van with mostly tinted windows.
> ...



I still have a ghillie. You're giving me ideas... :lmao:


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Sorry you took my comment the wrong way initially.
> 
> Like others said, I was giving you a parents perspective. And the usage of "You" and "Me" was just to facilitate the writing of the post.
> 
> ...



No harms done. You are welcome to give more advices if you have anymore in your mind.


----------



## TJdarla (Jul 10, 2013)

I bring my 4 grand kids to the park all the time and take pictures of them playing on the swings and other things. some times the young kids that are there ask me to take there picture, I will snap off a quick on and go back to what I was doing with the grand kids. I did have a mother that was sitting next to my wife ask if she could have a copy emailed to her and my wife did so later that night.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 10, 2013)

I do not know about other countries, but the UK Law says it is perfectly legal to photograph kids in public places if it is not intruding. What is intruding and what is not - it is for the parent to decide, not the photographer, but the photographer must see the line. I personally have not had any problems, first because when I am at a playground I am always with this guy, who takes 99% of my attention.


















And secondly it should be a very rare amazing moment when I would simply obliged to pull the trigger. I hever had one, sadly. And something tells me - if a parent is a bit angry - there is a perfect reason. And the reason usually is like: "There is nothing to photograph, you idiot. It is just the kid playing... and it is my kid, not yours."  If there is some magic moment and I think "WoW" - I would not hesitate to shoot and offer a parent a photograph. And i am sure any parent would understand. And we both would be delighted. As I said sadly these moments avoid me. Probably others are just lucky. I find shooting other kids extremely boring, somehow they never look nearly as cute or funny as my own 


Unless, of course it is a very special kid: 


















I hope his mom will not mind..


----------



## tecboy (Jul 10, 2013)

Thanks for overwhelming advices!  Now, I have confidence to shoot kids.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 10, 2013)

People might come across as somewhat over sensitive at times but parents are going to protect their children; they don't know who you are or what you're doing or why you're around. There was just an incident in my area over the 4th of July of an apparent attempt to abduct a child in broad daylight at a busy amusement park so it seems understandable that parents might feel like they can't be too careful. And I know someone who put a photo of their child in their Halloween costume on social media and it went somewhat viral and apparently they found it fun at first and then said it got creepy. 

At the convention mentioned in the OP parents had their children in costumes and they were at an event where likely pictures were being taken (and there was probably media coverage) so they may not have had a problem with someone taking their children's pictures. It could be a different situation if you're at a park etc. where kids are playing and other than the kids' families people most likely aren't there with cameras.  

There's a difference between taking photos and what you do with them. What might have been meant by endangering yourself is that if you don't have a release or the parents' permission for subject under 18 you could be leaving yourself wide open if you post or use the photos anywhere. I think photographers need to protect themselves and get permission so they're covered.

If the photos are used for editorial purposes there may not be a need for a release but one might be requested; if you'd use a photo for retail or commercial use you'd most likely need one. Model release for a minor child | American Society of Media Photographers   If you post photos online for display purposes you might want to read Terms & Conditions of the website (including social media sites) so you know where or how your photos might be used.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

Took this and a few other dozen like it without anybody in an entire cramped room full of parents batting an eyelash.  Definitely helps to have the children in between your camera and some scene that is interesting as a normal photography subject:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Took this and a few other dozen like it without anybody in an entire cramped room full of parents batting an eyelash.  Definitely helps to have the children in between your camera and some scene that is interesting as a normal photography subject:
> 
> View attachment 49718



Yea.. cuz it is a picture of fish (primary) with silhouetted kids (secondary) in the frame.... no facial detail.  How would it be if it was a picture of kids (Primary - with good facial detail), with fish silhouette (secondary)? Might be a different story!  lol!


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Took this and a few other dozen like it without anybody in an entire cramped room full of parents batting an eyelash.  Definitely helps to have the children in between your camera and some scene that is interesting as a normal photography subject:
> ...



Uh, my point was that the parents didn't react at all.  I wasn't showing them my pictures and having them approve! They didn't have any idea whatsoever whether I'm taking silhouettes or not.

It's not like 15 parents in the room all saw my camera, judged the ambient lighting, recognized which lens i was using and remembered its maximum aperture from heart as well as the maximum usable ISO range on my camera body, decided that I couldn't take a photo of their children's faces that was recognizable, and only then decided not to say anything as a result...

No, they saw a camera pointed at some fishies, and assumed I was taking pictures of fishies,  end of story.  The relevance to this thread being that you can get away with taking pictures of kids without freaking anybody out if you position yourself so that the kids as well as something normally photoworthy are both in the same direction.

And as a *bonus*, if you do that, you automatically have a pretty background for your images of kids anyway!

(By the way, even if somebody did understand my camera and lens, this was taken in a normally lit interior room with oodles of light.  The photo is f/4 ISO 400, and I had a 50mm 1.8 on me at the time.  Could have achieved 6-7 more stops of available light if I wanted to, handheld. That tank was damn bright.)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



So sneaky pictures of kids are ok? As long as the parent's don't realize you are shooting them? hmmmm... if you say so! To paraphrase your words in another thread... "that's creepy!"


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 10, 2013)

Yeah, come on Gavjenks! I called you a genius before and you go and call me creepy? Of course, that may not have been directed at me, but still. I was simply asking for honest voices on how they would photograph the girl. As for this pic, I like it, but I don't like the position of the kid on the right - seems detached.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 11, 2013)

> So sneaky pictures of kids are ok? As long as the parent's don't realize you are shooting them? hmmmm... if you say so! To paraphrase your words in another thread... "that's creepy!"





> Yeah, come on Gavjenks! I called you a genius before and you go and call me creepy? Of course, that may not have been directed at me, but still. I was simply asking for honest voices on how they would photograph the girl. As for this pic, I like it, but I don't like the position of the kid on the right - seems detached.


In the other thread I was referring to the fact that everybody who had commented up until that point was talking about tapioca and/or actually shooting her with a gun, not the OP. I was also not actually creeped out (more like an electronic eyebrow raise).

And anyway, yes, sneaky pictures of kids are indeed okay.  I think NON-sneaky pictures of kids are okay too, and would be a lot easier. It's just that you can't guarantee not getting screamed at or punched in the face or whatever, due to people being super paranoid about child molesters.  As long as you're not a child molester or similar, though, then their fears are inaccurate, and it doesn't seem immoral at all to circumvent them by being sneaky.  At least not any more immoral than being sneaky when taking candids of adults.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > So sneaky pictures of kids are ok? As long as the parent's don't realize you are shooting them? hmmmm... if you say so! To paraphrase your words in another thread... "that's creepy!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So as long as you don't get caught, it is not immoral? That is a scary attitude....


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 11, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > So sneaky pictures of kids are ok? As long as the parent's don't realize you are shooting them? hmmmm... if you say so! To paraphrase your words in another thread... "that's creepy!"
> ...



Sounds a bit Creepy to me...


----------



## ronlane (Jul 11, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > Ah hell... just be inconspicuous ... shoot the photos from the curb with a giant lens from inside a white van with mostly tinted windows.
> ...



NOW I have a reason to get a ghille suit, Sweet!!!!!!


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 11, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > So sneaky pictures of kids are ok? As long as the parent's don't realize you are shooting them? hmmmm... if you say so! To paraphrase your words in another thread... "that's creepy!"
> ...



I find it very difficult to believe that you actually are not getting my point.  I think you're just being difficult. But regardless:

The reason it is moral is not "because I didn't get caught." The reason it's moral because *I'm not a child molester*; I'm just a photographer who thinks kids are cute. Thus, there's not anything I'm actually doing wrong in the first place to be "caught" at. I'm not breaking any laws, and I'm not actually posing any threat to children.

The only reason to be sneaky is to avoid confrontation from paranoid people who may jump to _incorrect _assumptions and be unwilling to have a logical discussion.  I'd prefer not to get (*wrongly*!) punched in the face, if I can avoid it. that's all. It's a protection from overly sensitive behavior. Also, since there is not any actual threat, the only possible negative consequence is the parent's own fear making them stressed out.  So preventing that from happening is also a favor to them at the same time.

By analogy, if your roommate is cranky when he wakes up too early in the morning and yells at people/is obnoxious, for instance, you would probably tiptoe around in the morning when walking past his bedroom, to avoid getting yelled at.  That doesn't mean you're being creepy... it's perfectly reasonable for you to be walking in the hallway.  It's just that you're protecting yourself from unreasonable aggression.  And simultaneously preventing your roommate from experiencing the stress of being woken up at a time of day when they are cranky. Win win.

By analogy #2, if you wanted to take a photograph of a violent riot, you would probably do so with some sort of escape plan in mind and a little bit of distance.  Does that mean you're breaking the law or being a creeper? "Surely you shouldn't be thinking about escaping if you didn't do anything wrong!" is essentially your logic here.... No, that's silly. You're protecting yourself from OTHER people breaking the law.  Just like I don't want a parent punching me, you don't want a rioter cornering you and throwing a rock at you. Sneakiness is one form of legitimate self preservation in both cases.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



But you are AWARE... that most likely, the parents would NOT want you do shoot their kids, and you are circumventing that by being sneaky. You even concede that you are aware of it, and wish to avoid confrontation due to your circumventing it. That in itself is a questionable behavior, almost socio-pathic... since the decision is based on consequences and a the desire to avoid those consequences (classic socio-pathic behavior)... rather than what may be right or wrong (moral sense / compass)


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jul 11, 2013)

I agree with Charlie.  I'd be 10x more likely to call the cops on someone who is hiding in the bushes snapping photos. It makes you appear more guilty because you allready assume you shouldn't be doing it, or not being seen doing it, and saying it's okay because your not a child molester won't matter one bit to the parent or person who does call the police on you. hiding in the bushes snapping photos of kids would likely result in a warrant and having your hard drives searched way more then walking up and showing your card and asking to take photos regardless of wether or not your guilty.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 11, 2013)

> almost socio-pathic... since the decision is based on consequences and a the desire to avoid those consequences


lolwut?  That's not what a sociopath is.  EVERY person in the world considers consequences and has a desire to avoid consequences. Doing that in and of itself is in no way a sign of sociopathy.

Sociopaths are people who *only *use that to make decisions, in lieu of any empathy or emotional or moral considerations.

Thanks for the internet diagnosis, though.



> rather than what may be right or wrong (moral sense / compass)


I do have a moral compass.  It's just that it doesn't point to anything being wrong with taking a harmless photograph of a cute kid who is already on display in plain view of everybody in public.

*Nor can I think of any majorly adopted religions or philosophies in history that would suggest anything is wrong with that, either. *Not even the strictest of the goody-two-shoes philosophies, like Kant's categorical imperative (I can comfortably say that it should be a universal law that children acting normally in public are allowed to be photographed for innocent purposes, including any of my own future children. And in fact, this is the law in the United States. Therefore, Kant would give me the rubber stamp on that being a moral action to pursue.)


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 11, 2013)

> I agree with Charlie.  I'd be 10x more likely to call the cops on  someone who is hiding in the bushes snapping photos. It makes you appear  more guilty


Did you read my post earlier that started this discussion?  I didn't say I was hiding in the bushes.  I said I was standing in plain sight, but simply orienting myself so that the kids are in between me and some background subject that looks like somebody would want to photograph it, such that they assume i am photographing that, not the kids.

And even if I were hiding in bushes, "appearing guilty" is not the same thing as "being guilty."



> would likely result in a warrant and having your hard drives searched


If this were to happen, it still would not make the original actions immoral or make me guilty.  It may be a practical reason not to skulk in bushes (and in fact IS a reason why I don't skulk in bushes), but "Oh my god, somebody might issue a warrant for this action" does not make an action immoral. it simply means it is something that is statistically practical for the justice system to follow up on.

Standing in the middle of the sidewalk or aquarium whatever taking photos of a kid 10 feet away, and nto attempting to hide at all, is NOT statistically practical to follow up on, though, and it would be extraordinarily unlikely to have a warrant issued for that. Especially since there's no obvious way that the parents or police could ever even verify in the first place that I WAS taking photographs of children at all, unless they started out with a warrant to search my card (which is circular). if any parents asked, I would say that it's none of their business, and if police asked, I would say nothing.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 11, 2013)

I've changed my behavior about photographing children for a couple of reasons: first because the American culture has adopted this incredibly protective attitude towards pictures of their children.
It may be unwarranted, it may be silly but it exists - and I need a good reason to stir that pot.
Second, I'm doing a lot more pre-shutter button editing. 
I don't think that every picture is worthwhile just because it is in focus and exposed correctly and, to be honest, children aren't very interesting subjects AFAIC unless they're in an interesting environment like in GavJenks pictures above.

yes, snapping pictures of children in a public place is legal but, in line with my attitude on photographing the homeless, unless there is a compelling artistic reason to do it, I don't.


----------



## CowgirlMama (Jul 11, 2013)

I prefer to know that you're taking my kid's picture. Not because I'm going to freak out that you did it, but because I'd *love* to have you send me a copy.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > almost socio-pathic... since the decision is based on consequences and a the desire to avoid those consequences
> 
> 
> lolwut?  That's not what a sociopath is.  EVERY person in the world considers consequences and has a desire to avoid consequences. Doing that in and of itself is in no way a sign of sociopathy.
> ...



I notice that you did not address this:  *But you are AWARE... that most likely, the parents would NOT want you do  shoot their kids, and you are circumventing that by being sneaky.*

please do!! I am just curious about why you think it is ok to do something against an parent's wishes... concerning their child!  Do we know for sure that the parent's would be upset? NO! But since you are being sneaky about it, you obviously expect that they would be upset... hence the sneakiness, correct?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 11, 2013)

There doesn't seem to be any way for someone observing a person sneaking around behind kids to know if that person is a potential predator or not. It would appear to be a suspicious behavior and possibly reportable depending on what's being observed (if it seems that the situation could be potentially endangering a child). 

"As long as you're not a child molester... their fears are inaccurate..."  - 'they' don't know you're not a child molester so I think their fears would be accurate in a situation where a stranger is sneaking around their child. 

At a zoo there would be people taking pictures so as long as it's permissible to bring cameras into the venue, it's not likely that anyone would find it objectionable to see someone taking pictures of an aquarium with people in the scene. If you were observed continuing to follow a child around at some point it's possible people would start noticing and might bring it to the attention of security at the venue.

What you're saying seems inconsistent when you talk about taking photos in full view and then talk about trying to not be seen. I wonder if what you might mean is taking photos from some distance - I've done events and typically have used a short telephoto so I wouldn't necessarily be real close to whatever I'd be photographing, but still people would see me walking around and taking pictures and usually we would nod, smile, and sometimes kids would wave and want their pictures taken and sometimes people would ask me if I was taking pictures for the ____ paper and I'd say no I'm taking pictures for ____ and so on. I think it's a matter of developing appropriate techniques to be able to get photos when people are not looking at you and your camera without it appearing to be questionable as to what you're doing. 

With some of the comments you've made on here Gavjenks it wouldn't be surprising someday if you end up getting punched and/or arrested or possibly both because of the way you're coming across on some of these topics. If a photographer is respectful and cordial to people it's more likely they'd give permission or not have a problem with what the photographer's doing. So back to Techboy's OP, people at an event would likely expect photos would be taken if cameras are allowed, but what you intend to do with the photos especially of subjects under 18 is where you might need to obtain a written release to cover usage. 

And if you're going to bring up Kant I'd have to go refresh my memory on his philosophy since it's been a long time since I've taken an ed psych course much less a general psych course - or maybe I'll just go look for a video of the Monty Python philosophers' song...


----------



## skieur (Jul 11, 2013)

You have to be a paranoic idiot to believe everyone with a camera shooting kids is a sexual predator.  Any one with brains and attention to detail should be able to make an accurate assessment.  If you think that someone with thousands of dollars worth of equipment taking commercial quality shots is a potential sexual predator, than there is something wrong with YOU.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 11, 2013)

skieur said:


> You have to be a paranoic idiot to believe everyone with a camera shooting kids is a sexual predator.  Any one with brains and attention to detail should be able to make an accurate assessment.  If you think that someone with thousands of dollars worth of equipment taking commercial quality shots is a potential sexual predator, than there is something wrong with YOU.



That's a silly kind of assessment. 
I would think a serious predator who gets off on pictures of children would do exactly that; get good at it.
Not to mention, whatever you think of the parents who feel protective is not the point. 
They feel that way. 
Even intelligent people believe all sorts of crazy, impossible things, why not this?
If you want to respect them as parents and people, honor their beliefs.
If you think your rights trump that, go right ahead and do what you want.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 11, 2013)

Gavjenks you bit at every line anybody throws your way !!!!  Lol !

I think everybody gets the point. It's not so much about "Is it ok to take pictures of kids". It's simply a question on how to behave in public. It's how you do it.

What if you we're taking pictures of a 6'4" 275lb biker covered in tattoos ?  Would you take tens of shoots and get in his face, claiming your right to take pictures in public ?

People are smart. Be smart about it.


----------



## flow (Jul 11, 2013)

skieur said:


> You have to be a paranoic idiot to believe everyone with a camera shooting kids is a sexual predator.  Any one with brains and attention to detail should be able to make an accurate assessment.  If you think that someone with thousands of dollars worth of equipment taking commercial quality shots is a potential sexual predator, than there is something wrong with YOU.



Why do you think sexual predators are less likely to have nice equipment than anyone else? They come from all socio-economic levels.
-----

I spend a fair amount of time out with my kids, & around others, often with a camera. From my perspective -- I'm generally pretty lenient, since I see how public spaces work. If someone snaps a quick shot of my child playing, I'm OK with it. If you're following them around the playground, we definitely have a problem. No matter what equipment you're carrying, no matter how open or sneaky you're being. I've done the "look at the fishy" shot even with my own kids, I don't have a problem with that either - but again, in moderation. The quick snap and then move on. If it was a great moment, that's one thing ... when you've fixated on my child exclusively, something is wrong. I'm not a confronter, though, so your nose will be safe - I just collect the kiddos and leave.

I DON'T want your business card either. If someone walked up to me and said "I took a picture of your child and here's my business card in case you want a copy", that would really bother me. Just seems a little "off" somehow ... like the subtext is "I took a photo of your child without permission, and it's for sale, but I'm willing to give you dibs." Kind of extortionistic somehow. If I want a pic of my own children, I will take it myself....if I really think you got something I want, I'll ask about it. If you're trying to build your business, ask FIRST.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2013)

flow said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > You have to be a paranoic idiot to believe everyone with a camera shooting kids is a sexual predator.  Any one with brains and attention to detail should be able to make an accurate assessment.  If you think that someone with thousands of dollars worth of equipment taking commercial quality shots is a potential sexual predator, than there is something wrong with YOU.
> ...



I agree... I ask first, with a business card.. and make sure they know any images they are want free! If they say yes, I shoot... if they don't want me too, I do not! And I don't shoot intending to sell prints... I shoot to try and capture a beautiful child, period. But IMO, Parent deserve the courtesy of being asked, without some ******* just assuming it is ok and blasting away. And it is based on courtesy, not some predator BS.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

> I notice that you did not address this: But you are AWARE... that most likely, the parents would NOT want you do shoot their kids, and you are circumventing that by being sneaky.
> 
> please do!! I am just curious about why you think it is ok to do something against an parent's wishes... concerning their child! Do we know for sure that the parent's would be upset? NO! But since you are being sneaky about it, you obviously expect that they would be upset... hence the sneakiness, correct?


Because I don't think it's any of their business what I take pictures of in public, as long as I'm not breaking any laws or preparing to break laws.  Just because you have a small human in your family and like to go outside doesn't mean you have some sort of special authority over what everybody else can or cannot do in their free time in public spaces.

If you can't handle being in a free country or exposing your child to the consequences of being in a free country, then:
A) Don't have kids, or
B) Keep your kids indoors or on private lawns 100% of the time, or
C) Move to some other country

Children do not have any more reasonable of an expectation of privacy than adults do, nor do their parents have reasonable expectations of privacy FOR their kids beyond what they have for themselves, just because the kids have only been alive for a small number of years.

The reason i'm sneaky is because people still have *UN*reasonable expectations anyway, and this is IMO the easiest way to just go with the flow and get the best photos most often with the least effort and fewest negative emotions or difficulties all around.

People have lots of unreasonable expectations about all kinds of things.  It's not my responsibility to go about changing all of those expectations and making everybody fully up to date and happy before doing anything (for instance by providing business cards and givibng a whole spiel and offering prints).  If that's what you want to do, then bravo! You're making a better name for photographers everywhere, and I appreciate you going the extra mile.  But it is just that: an EXTRA mile, and not an obligation, either legally or morally.




> What you're saying seems inconsistent when you talk about taking photos in full view and then talk about trying to not be seen. I wonder if what you might mean is taking photos from some distance


It's not inconsistent, because I never said I was trying not to be seen.  The parents *can* see me just fine. They are 100% aware that there's a guy with a big DSLR and lens (usually also a waist belt holster too) standing there 10 feet away from their kids.  The reason they don't care is that they almost always assume 99% of the time that I'm taking a photo of the fountain or the scenery behind them, because I place myself and act in such a way so that they will think that (for example, I often do "ambush" compositions where I will compose a photo based on where a kid WILL likely be and then wait for one to run into that position, which prevents me from visibly tracking children with my lens in a way that would give up the illusion).  If and when parents might think otherwise, they are at least uncertain enough to never say anything.

So far this strategy has led to zero confrontations ever (as in, not even anybody mentioning it at all or complaining verbally in the slightest, much less getting in my face or in any way threatening), as well as photos that by definition have pretty backgrounds, since havign a pretty background is the whole point and the source of the illusion.



> it wouldn't be surprising someday if you end up getting punched and/or arrested or possibly both because of the way you're coming across on some of these topics.


Luckily for me, I don't provide links to these topics to people before photographing them, so the way I come across in them is irrelevant.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > I notice that you did not address this: But you are AWARE... that most likely, the parents would NOT want you do shoot their kids, and you are circumventing that by being sneaky.
> >
> > please do!! I am just curious about why you think it is ok to do something against an parent's wishes... concerning their child! Do we know for sure that the parent's would be upset? NO! But since you are being sneaky about it, you obviously expect that they would be upset... hence the sneakiness, correct?
> 
> ...



I really do hope some big ol Angry Redneck Daddy catches on to you sometime (taking pictures of his little sweetpea)... so you can explain to him your theories about what is Unreasonable!    <Fingers Crossed!>


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > I notice that you did not address this: But you are AWARE... that most likely, the parents would NOT want you do shoot their kids, and you are circumventing that by being sneaky.
> ...



Charlie, remember us big Angrey Redneck Daddies with a little sweetpea, don't wait around for an explanation. We act first and ask questions later.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 12, 2013)

Wow, it's like reading a handbook for stalkers !

You know you can take excellent pictures of kids while still being civil and in plain daylight !


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Wow, it's like reading a handbook for stalkers !
> 
> You know you can take excellent pictures of kids while still being civil and in plain daylight !



yea... pretty damn sleazy! I guess some people can justify anything....


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Wow, it's like reading a handbook for stalkers !
> 
> You know you can take excellent pictures of kids while still being civil and in plain daylight !



Really? Wait a minute, I just bought my ghillie suit and was waiting for it to cool down to go to the park and try it out. Dang it.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 12, 2013)

I think this is basically a very interesting social question.

As an Angry Redneck Daddy, why -- exactly -- does a stranger taking pictures make you mad? I feel the same emotion, I think, but it's quite tempered because I literally cannot think of a single rational reason for it and I have been working away at it for a while. The idea that some stranger is a sexual predator is statistically silly, and anyways -- so what? The idea of a pedophile photographing my daughters DOES bother me more than the idea of a pedophile simply looking at them and using his memory, and I don't have a rational reason why.

Any insights?

I have some theories, but they're fundamentally about superstition and irrationality.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 12, 2013)

Gav, do you live in the US ?  I can't see using my iPhone. 

While what you're saying is correct and lawful. What everybody is trying to point out is how totally irrational a typical parent can be when his/her child's perceived safety comes into question. A parent will lay down his life for their child with no hesitation. Most of them anyway. So moving in on you or taking totally extreme measures is a serious possibility. 

Will it happen ? Probably not. But if it does, the possible ramifications are just to crazy to risk.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

I don't even have kids.. and this nonsense is pissing me off! :thumbdown:


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

I don't seek out children and never said i did. I only photograph them if they happen to be being cute around some other thing I originally set out to photograph.

So this has nothing to do with stalking.

Please refrain from pulling random insults out of a hat that dont make any sense and without any justification. Im not doing anything to you or being rude to justify that.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think this is basically a very interesting social question.
> 
> As an Angry Redneck Daddy, why -- exactly -- does a stranger taking pictures make you mad? I feel the same emotion, I think, but it's quite tempered because I literally cannot think of a single rational reason for it and I have been working away at it for a while. The idea that some stranger is a sexual predator is statistically silly, and anyways -- so what? The idea of a pedophile photographing my daughters DOES bother me more than the idea of a pedophile simply looking at them and using his memory, and I don't have a rational reason why.
> 
> ...



Andrew, I can't answer your question because it depends on the situation itself. I will say this, all of my reaction and being mad would come from my self defense mechanisms to protect my children.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 12, 2013)

It's a basic natural response. Animals react the same way.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

Kolia yes it is slightly risky. But the chances of serious injury are incredibly low, and we all take much larger risks every day for much lower rewards.

For example, biking to the grocery store for ice cream is vastly more likely to result in injury but nobody would admonish me about that risk at all.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 12, 2013)

Have any type of sexual offense attached to your name will seriously limit your freedom. 

There are no gradation of these offenses as far as the public is concerned.

These things will limit the places you can live. Anywhere you move, a card announcing you and the fact that your a listed as a sex offender will be sent by the local sherif. Good luck getting a new job or traveling abroad. 

It's just a huge mess. 

I'm not implying any thing about you personally. Don't get upset !


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Kolia yes it is slightly risky. But the chances of serious injury are incredibly low, and we all take much larger risks every day for much lower rewards.
> 
> For example, biking to the grocery store for ice cream is vastly more likely to result in injury but nobody would admonish me about that risk at all.



Not a valid arguement there. You biking to the store only involves yourself. Taking pictures of someone elses children involves the kid and the parents.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 12, 2013)

Photographing is perceived as "threat" when looking is not. Interesting, isn't it?

Obviously looking can also be seen as a threat, sometimes. The point is there are circumstances in which:

- looking -> no threat
- photographing -> threat


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Kolia yes it is slightly risky. But the chances of serious injury are incredibly low, and we all take much larger risks every day for much lower rewards.
> ...



First of all biking does not just involve me... if a car hits me, that person will be racked with guilt their whole life. Or I could run into a pedestrian etc.

And the photography does involve the kid and parent but does NOT involve any risk to their well being.

So its kind of actually the opposite. Not only is biking a higher risk for me but also a higher risk for others! And yet nobody bats an eyelash at it


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> [
> 
> First of all biking does not just involve me... if a car hits me, that *person will be racked with guilt their whole life*.



I think that is an unreasonable expectation! ME? I would back up and go again, just to make sure I got you!    :lmao:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



I see it as *Basic Courtesy* and *showing Respect* to the parents and child... but apparently you don't "GET" that....


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

Kolia said:


> Have any type of sexual offense attached to your name will seriously limit your freedom.
> 
> There are no gradation of these offenses as far as the public is concerned.
> 
> ...



You have to be convicted. Which I wouldn't be, because im not doing anything even remotely illegal, there are always tons of third party witnesses, and I have access to some very good legal counsel if needed. I cant even think of any grounds on which I could be (lawfully) arrested in the first place.

This is even lesd of a risk IMO than being mortally wounded, and not the slightest bit worth living in fear over.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

There you go again mixing what is "legal" and what is the right thing to do.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

Cgipson, that's fine, but there is a long tradition of candid street photography, and it is clear that a great many people do not view it as particularly disrespectful. Its not an objective reality that I "just am not getting." Its an opinion that I disagree with, as do many others (not necessarily most. Just many). Im not sure theres anything else to say about it than that, since you dont seem interested in any sort of actual disvussion on this point in terms of philosophical principles etc. ...other than just stating your position multiple times.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

ronlane said:


> There you go again mixing what is "legal" and what is the right thing to do.



THAT post was legal because I was responding to a person making a legal argument. Sheez.

As youll see in multiple previous posts, I also see no reason why it is immoral, not according to any major, mainstream religions or philosophical tenets I can think of. If you care to point some out then we could go somewhere more interesting and productive.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

Sorry for the triple post. smartphone is hard to work with.

Anyway, also, I find it pretty absurd for you to be lecturing me on respectfulness, cgipson, when you post things like this:



cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Hm, let's see, which is more disrespectful?

A) Photographing a kid without permission? or
B) Telling somebody that you would be glad to see them die from traumatic internal injuries (and would like to help perpetuate those injuries), without any provocation other than them politely disagreeing with you on an internet forum?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Cgipson, that's fine, but there is a long tradition of candid street photography, and it is clear that a great many people do not view it as particularly disrespectful. Its not an objective reality that I "just am not getting." Its an opinion that I disagree with, as do many others (not necessarily most. Just many). Im not sure theres anything else to say about it than that, since you dont seem interested in any sort of actual disvussion on this point in terms of philosophical principles etc. ...other than just stating your position multiple times.



I believe most street photography I have seen was of adults.. some children, usually multiple... yes... but mostly adults. And the best street photography I have seen shows the subjects respectfully. 

And it it the jerks that shoot that genre that has given  photography much of the invasive "bad" reputation it has! You sound just like a papparazi trying to justify what they do... I suppose that style of shooting is OK with you too?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Sorry for the triple post. smartphone is hard to work with.
> 
> Anyway, also, I find it pretty absurd for you to be lecturing me on respectfulness, cgipson, when you post things like this:
> 
> ...



Oh.. but I was joking.. didn't you see the smileys? (gosh... where is that sarcasm font when you need it?)  lol!


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

> I believe most street photography I have seen was of adults.. some  children, usually multiple... yes... but mostly adults. And the best  street photography I have seen shows the subjects respectfully.



1) What about the photo I posted earlier shows the subjects in a disrespectful light?  The two kids look amazed and curious about an aquarium, which is an accurate, normal, and expected representation of them.
2) Why do you think kids have more rights than adults do?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > I believe most street photography I have seen was of adults.. some  children, usually multiple... yes... but mostly adults. And the best  street photography I have seen shows the subjects respectfully.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SNEAKY? 
they need more protection... they are kids...
Apparently you cannot tell a joking post (you know... backing up, major exaggeration, etc, ) from a serious post... just as you cannot tell "whats legal" from "what is respectful and courteous"


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> 3) As per my previous post, telling people you'd like to see them get crushed by cars is a much faster way to gain a bad reputation than taking candid photographs is.



16,061 posts on here, Charlie already has a reputation on here. You are still working on yours.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > 3) As per my previous post, telling people you'd like to see them get crushed by cars is a much faster way to gain a bad reputation than taking candid photographs is.
> ...



YEA! I am a vicious MWAC hater with poetic aspirations... so there!


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

> SNEAKY?
> they need more protection... they are kids...
> Apparently you cannot tell a joking post (you know... backing up, major  exaggeration, etc, ) from a serious post... just as you cannot tell  "whats legal" from "what is respectful and courteous"



What  about that photo tells you that I did not have permission to take it?  The sneakiness is not a part of the photo and thus has nothing to do  with whether the subjects are "shown respectfully" or not.
They do  need more protections, but protection is not an issue here, since I  don't pose any threat to them. I'm not touching them or even talking to  them. And I generally wouldn't even post their images if not anonymyzed  like the silhouettes. So protection is not the issue here, and if all  you're worried about is protection, then I guess we are in agreement,  eh?

And I edited my 1,2,3 post after seeing your response, but was too late I guess.  I'll pull it into this post instead:



> Oh.. but I was joking.. didn't you see the smileys? (gosh... where is that sarcasm font when you need it?)  lol!


My apologies for not finding jokes about violent crimes like rape or murder very funny (or respectful).


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > SNEAKY?
> > they need more protection... they are kids...
> > Apparently you cannot tell a joking post (you know... backing up, major  exaggeration, etc, ) from a serious post... just as you cannot tell  "whats legal" from "what is respectful and courteous"
> 
> ...



See my post above yours...


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 12, 2013)

If you deal with violent crime/violence on a regular basis, a sense of humor is absolutely essential ... my life has been quite violent at times and if I couldn't find a way to cope/laugh.. I'd have gone insane a long time ago.

I don't find things like that offensive. Just because someone utilizes a sense of humor regarding violence doesn't mean they condone it or don't feel for the victims.

In fact it's quite the opposite .. despite my darker sense of humor, I'd trade my life if it meant saving another.

So I wouldn't go putting too much emphasis on the idea that someone jokes like that. Just my take on it.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

Right, so if a female forum member was disagreeing with you a lot, it would be perfectly okay to make a joke about raping her in frustration if you met on the street? It be "okay" and "respectful" as long as you put a couple of smilies after it, yes?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Right, so if a female forum member was disagreeing with you a lot, it would be perfectly okay to make a joke about raping her in frustration if you met on the street? It be "okay" and "respectful" as long as you put a couple of smilies after it, yes?



Wow.. and I thought I liked to blow things out of proportion... lol! You are the new King!  lol!  (and no.. not even being disrespectful... HUMOR, get it?)


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Right, so if a female forum member was disagreeing with you a lot, it would be perfectly okay to make a joke about raping her in frustration if you met on the street? It be "okay" and "respectful" as long as you put a couple of smilies after it, yes?
> ...


How is that "blowing things out of proportion?"  That is EXACTLY what just happened, except, simply with murder in place of rape.  And murder tends to carry an equal or larger sentence and be equally or more disliked by society.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



Uh... reading comprehension, any? lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

There.. I just reported myself for my "joke" that you didn't get....  and I will not respond further.... cuz this is getting to be like a Monty Python skit (except they were funny!)


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

Intentionally backing up over somebody to make sure they're dead = murder.
Saying that's what you would like to do in a joking way due to frustration about disagreements = a murder joke.

Thus, literally, I could describe what you just said earlier in exactly the same way as I described the rape joke, but with "male" and "him" and "murdering."  So I was blowing things "under proportion" if anything.


The fact that it doesn't even seem to occur to you what might be wrong about this, much less the concept of a simple apology, honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for this community.  Up until now, it had seemed a bit more mature than what I was used to as far as forums.  I'm guessing you probably won't care too much if I avoid you a bit in the future on here.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 12, 2013)

I didn't see where that was done. Humor regarding violence is different than directly attacking/threatening someone specifically, regarding violence.

I've spent my entire adult life dealing with the reality of it. For me it isn't a forum discussion or philosophy.. it's life. I fought a war and went on to a decade in law enforcement. What I understand about violence wasn't an education I received from books nor is it theory.

Just about any cop, paramedic, veteran, doctor or nurse could tell you why it is violence has to be seen and dealt with very differently based on your exposure to it.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> If you deal with violent crime/violence on a regular basis, a sense of humor is absolutely essential ... my life has been quite violent at times and if I couldn't find a way to cope/laugh.. I'd have gone insane a long time ago.
> 
> I don't find things like that offensive. Just because someone utilizes a sense of humor regarding violence doesn't mean they condone it or don't feel for the victims.
> 
> ...



Hey Shooter, forget that logic, he wasn't here the other day when Charlie blasted me for wanting to kill an innocent snake.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> I didn't see where that was done. Humor regarding violence is different than directly attacking/threatening someone specifically, regarding violence.
> 
> I've spent my entire adult life dealing with the reality of it. For me it isn't a forum discussion or philosophy.. it's life. I fought a war and went on to a decade in law enforcement. What I understand about violence wasn't an education I received from books nor is it theory.
> 
> Just about any cop, paramedic, veteran, doctor or nurse could tell you why it is violence has to be seen and dealt with very differently based on your exposure to it.



Okay, and that might explain a darker sense of humor being acceptable by default in a police station, bunker, or hospital break room. Not on public forums with people of every background. And it certainly doesn't explain a failure to adjust, apologize, or at the very least, acknowledge personal differences if and when somebody DOES react badly.  Even more ridiculous and unexplained by the above is that happening in a thread where the same person was arguing for 3 pages about _respect and sensitivity toward others_. If somebody is a rough and tumble cowboy veteran with a thick skin, okay.  But they can't quite be both that, and really touchy about child photography at the same time..

Nor does your logic explain why a murder joke would be okay, but not a rape joke.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 12, 2013)

This is going from actual discussion to personal attacks. So before it gets to the point of no return, and someone gets their feelings hurt, lets just dial back the accusations  a little please.  Thanks.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 12, 2013)

Wee !  leave for a two hour meeting and look what i missed !!!

Not much abstract thinking going on here. For artsy photographers, it's surprising !

If one feels he/she needs tricks and obfuscation to take otherwise "legal" pictures, one basically acknowledges that there is something not quite right with what he/she is doing...


----------



## skieur (Jul 12, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > You have to be a paranoic idiot to believe everyone with a camera shooting kids is a sexual predator. Any one with brains and attention to detail should be able to make an accurate assessment. If you think that someone with thousands of dollars worth of equipment taking commercial quality shots is a potential sexual predator, than there is something wrong with YOU.
> ...



Not silly at all.  All statistics show that the crime rate in both Canada and the US has gone down considerably in the last few years.  If you have any background whatsoever in psychiatry then you realize that no predator bothers to take average snapshots of children.  Your imagination has run away with your reason, logic, and understanding of mental/sexual aberration.

I would question the "intelligence" of "people who believe all sorts of crazy, impossible things", but then that may be your beliefs coming into play here.

I simply respect intelligence and demonstrated logic and cherish and exercise my rights, as by the way should the many americans who talk about their rights but don't exercise them when it proves inconvenient.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 12, 2013)

skieur said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



You are right.
I had expected that you could be mollified into an answer that was responsive and yet free from the anger and bitterness and downright scorn for anyone who isn't you.
I was wrong.
However I shall relieve myself of the burden of being wrong when expecting anything but the worst of you by putting you on ignore.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 12, 2013)

skieur said:


> Not silly at all.  All statistics show that the crime rate in both Canada and the US has gone down considerably in the last few years.  If you have any background whatsoever in psychiatry then you realize that no predator bothers to take average snapshots of children.  Your imagination has run away with your reason, logic, and understanding of mental/sexual aberration.
> 
> I would question the "intelligence" of "people who believe all sorts of crazy, impossible things", but then that may be your beliefs coming into play here.
> 
> I simply respect intelligence and demonstrated logic and cherish and exercise my rights, as by the way should the many americans who talk about their rights but don't exercise them when it proves inconvenient.



I'm sorry Skieur, but you have no idea of what you are talking about.

I'm Canadian and have been living in the US for the last 9 years. The crime rate, the perception of safety and the measures needed to be taken to take care of your own is totaly different here. Canadians think that the police will come to rescue them.  Americans know that by the time the squad car arrives, the crime will be over. Your own safety starts and basically ends with you. Every sherif web site have maps showing the location of all sex offenders.  And these people are everywhere.  Except near schools of course, where they cannot live.

Whatever what the statistisc are, to a victim, the hurt is felt 100%

As for the "intelligence" of a gut reaction, debating it is quite stupid. There is no intelligence or reflexion involved when dealing with these feelings.


----------



## terri (Jul 12, 2013)

Looks like we're done here.   The OP hasn't posted in this thread for 2 days, and it looks like he had enough responses to sort this issue out.


----------

