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

[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.

Now, I would look at the photos and see the expressions and the shot and think "what a great picture" same as many would. But, I do feel sorry for someone if my wife was at the park with my 2 young girls and she caught that person taking a picture of them. I would fear that they would be out quite an expensive camera. And about the internet, does anyone ever think that maybe someone wouldn't want pictures of their little girls out posted on the internet?

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.

Do people who are into photography as a hobby ever think of this? That perhaps someone wouldn't want their picture taken and certainly a mother wouldn't want their little girl's pictures on the internet? This type of thing is just absolutely unacceptable in my eyes.

Care to discuss?

[dougeefresh]

I think you bring an interesting point. The world has become a strange world.

[smc1377]

I understand where you're coming from. I like to take pictures of my daughter (2.5 years old) at the playground, but if other kids are there, I make sure to keep the camera down by my side. I don't want any parents to feel like I'm some guy trying to sneak a picture of their kids. I tend not to take pictures of anyone else's kids even when I know I'm perfectly within my legal rights to.

I agree that just cause something is legal doesn't mean that it should be done. But I draw the line at kids. If it's adults out in public, they are pretty much fair game in my book (within reason of course).

[jdepould]

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.

Now, I would look at the photos and see the expressions and the shot and think "what a great picture" same as many would. But, I do feel sorry for someone if my wife was at the park with my 2 young girls and she caught that person taking a picture of them. I would fear that they would be out quite an expensive camera. And about the internet, does anyone ever think that maybe someone wouldn't want pictures of their little girls out posted on the internet?

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.

Do people who are into photography as a hobby ever think of this? That perhaps someone wouldn't want their picture taken and certainly a mother wouldn't want their little girl's pictures on the internet? This type of thing is just absolutely unacceptable in my eyes.

Care to discuss?

You're entitled to your opinion, it just happens to be wrong. If people don't want their children to be seen by other people, then they shouldn't take them out in public.

As a journalist, nonsense like this drives me insane. People think they have a right to privacy in a public place, and they just don't. Age is irrelevant.

If someone is sitting in a tree with a 400mm lens that's one thing, but I'm standing out in the open, probably with an 18-70. If people don't want their picture taken they can just move.

You'd also be looking at criminal and civil charges for assault and battery and willful destruction of property, not to mention the wonderful example you'd be setting for your children.

[TerryL]

Originally Posted by jdepould

You're entitled to your opinion, it just happens to be wrong. If people don't want their children to be seen by other people, then they shouldn't take them out in public.

As a journalist, nonsense like this drives me insane. People think they have a right to privacy in a public place, and they just don't. Age is irrelevant.

If someone is sitting in a tree with a 400mm lens that's one thing, but I'm standing out in the open, probably with an 18-70. If people don't want their picture taken they can just move.

You'd also be looking at criminal and civil charges for assault and battery and willful destruction of property, not to mention the wonderful example you'd be setting for your children.

You are right.

[waffles]

I have a story to go along with this.

One day I was shooting something for an organization with my school. There was a group of children that came in and did Martin Luther King, Jr. Day activities. So I was shooting mostly stuff with the people in the school organization helping out with stuff and a few with just the children. Little did I know that some of them were taken away from abusive parents and a picture of them getting out could help the parents find them.

So the person who brought these kids came over very nicely and asked to see what I had taken pictures of. She understood that I had no idea about these kids, but was very adamant in the fact that no pictures of these kids at all would be allowed to stay. Now I'm not a heartless person, and I really didn't want to put them in any danger. Not to mention I had plenty of stuff without them. So I erased them and that was the end of it. Was I obligated to do so in any way? Not at all. I would have been perfectly within my rights to tell her that she should have thought about that before bringing the kids out in public and she could just deal with it.

I understand that people might not want pictures of children out on the internet for people to see. But like almost everyone else here, I think that if you want a super secluded life you need to do it without entering any public places. Ever.

Protect your own children. Don't try to protect everyone else's.

And if you try to take or destroy my camera, I'm either going to get some really nice lenses or one of Canon's newest bodies out of it. And it would all be thanks to you not being civilized and trying to solve the situation in an adult manner.

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. Photographer's rights were created because of people like you and your wife.

[mrodgers]

Right only by law. Just as I am entitled to my opinion, so is jdepould and yourself. Only problem is, it's not my opinion that is wrong, it is your opinion as well as the law is morally wrong.

Since photojournalism is a paid profession, and journalists would jump all over the "photography copyright laws" if they were to catch someone else using one of their photos, I have to ask. Though I already know the answer, but I would like to hear some bogus reasoning about it. If you were to take a picture of my children, without my permission, and publish that photo, again without my permission, and get compensation for that photo of my children, would you compensate my children since they were the subject of that photo?

[waffles]

For editorial purposes, no. For anything else I would be legally obligated to do so.

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.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by mrodgers

Right only by law. Just as I am entitled to my opinion, so is jdepould and yourself. Only problem is, it's not my opinion that is wrong, it is your opinion as well as the law is morally wrong.

Since photojournalism is a paid profession, and journalists would jump all over the "photography copyright laws" if they were to catch someone else using one of their photos, I have to ask. Though I already know the answer, but I would like to hear some bogus reasoning about it. If you were to take a picture of my children, without my permission, and publish that photo, again without my permission, and get compensation for that photo of my children, would you compensate my children since they were the subject of that photo?

You aren't entitled to compensation unless it's an advertisement. I'm paid to report the news, I really don't care who it is in the picture. Generally, if you don't give your name (which should always be asked), the photo won't get used.

Stop trying to impose your morals on other people. There's a reason we have the First Amendment.

[Darryl]

I have to agree with mrogers to some extent. I wouldn't want to find my own picture on the net, let alone my childs or wifes. If I post my own mug, that's one thing- I'm accepting whatever risk comes with that. Just look at my avatar- I don't really have two heads, but either one is really my face. But it was my choice to have it there- if I found my mug on some site somewhere and I didn't know how it got there, I'd be really concerned. And if I did know how it got there, I might be moved to have some words with the photographer- depending on the factors. I may not care, but also I might. It should be my decision to allow or not.

If a parent posts a picture of his or her own child, that implies that they have considered the potential risk to the child, and made the choice to post or not accordingly. Maybe they just wanted to show off how cute the kid is to, say, members of a forum such as this one. Fine- but they might unwittingly be subjecting that child to the devices of a perp. There's probably just as little risk to this as there is to sending the child off to school or over to a friends house to play, but the decision if for the parent to make. I might add that if I were the child and didn't want my picture to be posted, then I'd expect my parent to honor that.
Having said all that, it's a different matter entirely if someone else posts a picture of my child or wife without my knowing about it. I can see this arising quite easily in a tourist situation or similar. It's hard sometimes not to have other people in your shots. If your shot is focusing on one or more of the people, then you are essentially stealing their mug shots. If your focus is on something else, and other people happen to be in your pic, that's not the same. However if one of those people come up to you and request that that shot be scrubbed, then I think that you should comply for the sake of their peace of mind. If a photographer has 'rights', then that should be tempered by the 'rights' of any persons whose mug might be captured on someone else's camera.

I'm not saying that all pictures taken are going to be posted online somehow, or are going to be used in some way that's damaging to someone included in someone else's picture, but that is the potential. Without thinking any deeper into this, I'm going to suggest that the use of common sense by the photographer would usually be enough to sidestep any potential problems in this regard. If one's objective is to capture an image of someone without their consent, then (post process or whatever) and post it online- I think common sense would tell you that this really isn't appropriate.

Yes, if you're out in public, you'd expect that people will be seeing your face and there's nothing you can do about it. That doesn't suggest that you have no choice at all as to whether they take your picture and post it on the internet. What's the vote- how many of you would be offended by that and how many wouldn't?