Posting pictures on the internet of people you don't know.

[waffles]

There's a reason why my avatar is 3 circles on a black background. But if someone wants to post a picture of me that's their problem. As long as they didn't do anything illegal to get it I'm cool with the whole thing.

[jiminyClickit]

mrodgers,

Using the phrase "people who are into photography" on a photography school website; claiming to know what is morally right; suggesting that cameras (used in a way you don't agree with) will likely sustain damage; arguing some "law is morally wrong," and asking if you (or your children) would be compensated for photos taken of your children:

Welcome to DPS, mrodgers.

[Insomnius]

Originally Posted by mrodgers

I'm new here and new to photography. I just read through a 9 page thread on "Post your candid shots". I saw quite a few children with comments such as "I don't know who this was..." type since it was a candid shot thread.

I have to ask, why is it that people who are into photography feel it is within their rights to first, take pictures of other people without their knowing it, and second, to post them on the internet, especially of children.

One of the abovementioned posts was mine, so I feel I should say something here.

It's certainly an area to tread carefully in, at least for me. I enjoy taking photos of people, but I don't take nearly as many as I'd like to because I know that lots of people aren't happy about having their picture taken at all, let alone by some stranger who might be a weirdo or, worse, someone who uses the internet

In public places, and especially in tourist-oriented areas, it can be difficult to take pictures without other people in them. When the pictures are of other people, I think a bit of common sense and common courtesy is usually all that's required.

It goes beyond what I feel is BS "photographer's rights" or whatever they call it. It's about morals. I will never post pictures of my girls on the internet and I know my wife would be absolutely furious to be surfing around at a site like this one and find someone who had posted a candid picture shot at a park or something of the girls when the photographer did not even know them.

I don't think it's fair to say that the issue is "about morals". Different people have different takes on this - and if some parents I see at an event aren't unhappy about having their cute kid's picture taken by a tourist, does that make them bad, immoral parents? I don't think it does.

I think waffles said pretty much what I would have said on the matter:

Originally Posted by waffles

I'm generally not going to take pictures of other people's children. And if I do and you don't like it, you can come ask me to stop and to erase what I have. But you better do it nicely, and I better have a picture of your kid on there and not some kid you saw out that you thought you needed to protect.

As a side note, given the prevalence of CCTV, webcams in public places and the like, it's probably not realistic to expect to be able to go out in public without your image rattling around goodness knows where, anyway.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by waffles

And just to clarify, neither opinion is wrong. And morals are not a wholly inclusive thing in society so you can't really say that the law is morally wrong.

Thanks for that level-headed response waffles. Can I just throw in a plea to keep it friendly? Opinions are opinions, and just that. Everyone is entitled to them without being told that those opinions are right or wrong.

[waffles]

Not a problem at all with that. I hate it when people say an opinion is wrong.

[Digidave]

Just curious mrodgers, do you know everyone in that shot you took at The Linesville Spillway? Did you ask them for permission to take their picture & post it on your website, on the internet? I'm just curious as to what you feel is the difference.

[WooD]

I shoot a lot of surf shots, so I'm taking pictures of people I don't know all the time.

I'll pick out the best dozen or so, and post on our local surf messageboard. He is a few I shot on the 23rd.
http://forums.surf-station.com/cgi-b...T;f=11;t=21436

I even post them on my smugmug account to sell for profit. Sold a lot more than I ever dreamed I'd sell too.

I've shot young kids, all the way up to dudes in their 70's.

Never once had anyone complain. I do have a lot of people come up to me asking if I got any good shots of them, or their kids.

So I'm in a situation where I'm shooting people, and yes.....a lot of times under age girls in some of the smallest bikinis you could imagine. Does that make me some kinda pervert, stalker, or just a semi pro surf photographer. Trust me I'm not alone either. If you check the link I posted above you'll see there are mass quantities of us, but we are also surfers ourselves.

[jiminyClickit]

Digidave,

You visited Mike's Garage, so you are also looking for some balance. I'm thinking children is the emotional button that got pushed. Laws are relatively clear; emotions are not. This is an ill-fated mixture of the two. Ever see "WarGames?"

[mrodgers]

Originally Posted by jiminyClickit

Digidave,

You visited Mike's Garage, so you are also looking for some balance. I'm thinking children is the emotional button that got pushed. Laws are relatively clear; emotions are not. This is an ill-fated mixture of the two. Ever see "WarGames?"

Indeed, that is what jumped into my head while reading through the "candid shot" thread when I saw pictures of young children and then the comments with the photos such as "I don't know who this was" or similar. I actually needed to go to my page I've posted elsewhere to see because those are shot quite a few years ago and the page. So..... yeah, he got me on that, hehe.

Of course, I am not saying that people who have shot those photos in the thread that sparked my thoughts are perverts or thinking ill-harm or anything. It is enjoyable to see those shots. But it popped into my head what my wife would think if the same photos would have been of our girls and then found on a forum such as this.

[wulf]

I think there is a difference between a picture that features a person as a subject and a picture that includes someone as part of the scene. As noted above, there are lots of places where it is nigh on impossible not to include people in a picture; if you are putting them as a subject then it is generally polite to ask permission or, in the case of a child, permission from their guardian.

I know that some people don't like the idea of their picture being widely published and I try to respect that where I know. For example, you won't find a lot of pictures of my family on the Internet and I am very selective with the pictures that filter through from church events (hooray for "guest passes" on Flickr). If someone contacted me because they had seen a picture of mine online that featured them (or their child) and wanted it removed I would probably oblige without question.

However, while most of my pictures are of plants, landscapes and buildings I wouldn't want to live in a culture where I couldn't take pictures in public places for fear of capturing a person I didn't know; therefore, I disagree with the tenor of the original post (although recognising that places like a children's play park are probably not ideal places to be wandering round with a camera).

Wulf