rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Or Mary Ellen Marks here in the US.

I swear, folks on the 'hog must be afraid of offending their own shadows. :)

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

If you really intend to take photos of individuals and keep them, you need to contact your local ACLU branch or their state headquarters. They are there to help protect the rights of all Americans. You probably are legally in the right - this was a public space wiith no expectation of privacy. HOWEVER - if it were your child, what would YOU want. This mother was right in trying to protect her child, but you were probably legally in the right.... Common sense is probably the best arbiter.

Nikonman44

Thats a stickler.

The old adage about getting a release comes to mind. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Many shows such as you mention will also let people know that by entering you might be photographed.

I carry small slips of paper that simply say I grant a release to use the foto and get a signature.

Interesting thought. I have only once come up against that issue.

Turned out that the child ( just amazingly beautiful and cute) had been adopted and the mother didn't want the foto to go public.

I did chat with her and explained my fotos are private and not circulated in such cases and promised her a print to keep.

She eased off and I did send her the copy.

The release is always a good idea and does not have to be a legal document, just permission granted to capture the moment and individual.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Why?

Would this person also call the ACLU if they were doing something else they are legally allowed to do like shop at the store?




Yes, and in this case, the photographer's rights are the ones in question, the poor suspicious mother who sees boogymen around every corner has no rights in these circumstances.



Not "probably"...certainly is the correct word.




Bingo.





I would not care. Photography isn't a crime. If I were that paranoid I wouldn't take my child outside.





Not probably, the word phrase is "you were legally in the right". The common sense you are mentioning is something the mother should be exercising.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You have to understand one thing, the law is what the Judge says it is. And it can differ from court room to court room.
And, yes, everyone, every private citizen, has an expectation of privacy in a PUBLIC place. Except for public figures. Thats the law.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

I'm not sure about the specifics of the law but........the world being what it today I do not take pictures of children without the parents consent....period.

If people are deliberately putting themselves on display (such as participints in parades, renaissance fairs etc) I fire away but.......if they have a child with them I hold my fire.

It's kind of a shame really since children can make wonderful subject.

Several years ago I was at a zoo where a little girl had her hand on a plexiglass window of a gorilla enclosure while the gorilla inside also had his hand on the window. The look of wonder on the little girl's face was .....well......wonderful. As I was lining up to take the shot the mother walked over and told me she wasn't comfortable with me taking the picture. It was my first encounter with this kind of attitude and I was taken aback and embarrassed.
After that I adhere to my "no children" with out parental approval policy.

It's unfortunate but many people immediately think "pervert" when they see a stranger pointing a camera at a child. Such is our brave new world.

Mary Kate Loc: NYC

I think you have to be dumber than dirt to think a parent would not be upset at some guy with a camera who thinks they have a "right" to take a picture of their child or children.

bigguytf

Unfortunately this world that we are living in is not the same as the world we grew up in. I am in education and in our state parents have to give their permission they understand that their child's picture may show up in accidental public pictures taken because their child goes to the school. About 100-150 of 2000 parents say they do not want that to happen under any conditions.
As a photographer you need to be aware that for parents (especially moms) this world is not as safe for kids as it used to be years ago when we were raised. I would alway's ask permission from the parent before I took their child's picture. It is just the right thing to do.

Clapperboard

The legal situation in UK is you are entitled to record anything you see or hear in a public place. That includes seeing or hearing something that may be going on in a private place, provided you are in a public place when you record it. Thus photos taken into a garden over a fence for example, from a public place are completely legitimate.
Hencepictures of children or anyone else taken in this way are completely legitimate subjects. NOTE: I am not suggesting anything at all along the lines of pictures of children for 'ODD' reasons.
Having recorded the material, sound or pictorial you have free right to publish it. Regardless.
Now, we come to the 'hazard' side of the matter.
The first one is that if you publish the material for financial gain, there is no problem if the subject is unknown, not famous. If the value of the material is in the 'celebrity status' of the subject then the subject has a copyright claim against the publisher. The same would be true if you record a professional musician rehearsing and then publish the recording.
The other hazard that seems to be causing most confusion and causes photographers the most problems is publishing pictures with children in them. Remember you have every right to take photos that include children whether they are the subject or just in the background.
But you may have a problem when you publish them. This stems from a case here in the UK where a photograph of a particular child was published. In the photograph the child was wearing a school uniform. The photograph and it being published was not in any way sinister.
However the child had been taken away from its' parents and the parents got to see the published picture. They traced the school from the uniform and contacted the child. Apparently to the detriment of the child.
The UK government used this case to bring out a law that is at best a knee jerk reaction and is in danger of being used as a sneaky way to censor publications generally.
The scope of that law is so lacking in definition that it is left open to wide interpretation in its' application to particular circumstances.
That law does not make it illegal to publish the photos. It makes any result from publishing the photo the responsibility of the publisher. Under 'a duty of care' reference in the law it would be a criminal offense to have published a photo that led to a similar result as happened in the case of the child in the school uniform.
Thus you have every right to record the child but you 'publish at your peril' . This is the aspect that is so misunderstood and so misused by people that just want to put a 'downer' on peoples hobbies.
Nether the police nor any other group or individual have a right to insist you delete your images.
This is the situation in the UK.

fourg1b2006 Loc: Long Island New York

You might be 100% correct as far as the law goes. But being correct is sometimes not the right thing to do. If a parent come to me and asked me to delete the photo of her child,i would have done it in a heartbeat. In this world we live in today people are scared. For all they know you could be a pedophile that would put that photo of their child on porn sites. So tell me....was it worth it to be correct.

Dan Copeland Loc: Hamilton Ontario Canada

In Hamilton a few years ago A cyclist said something to another person that made them think the cyclist took a photo of their child on his cell phone, and the outcome was the death of the cyclist. The thing was he never took a picture they assumed he did. The case is still unresolved to this day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/police-seize-truck-connected-to-cyclist-killing-1.2159050

There are many nut cases out there and be glad she called the police and not a buddy with a pickup.


Dan C

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

I love all the Philadelphia Lawyers here who have stated the Law so convincingly but incorrect. First it does not matter what city or town you are in the law is the same in the US no matter what. The OP was within his rights and the Cops were 100% wrong. The tip off should have been when they said delete the photo or lose your camera. If they had confiscated the Camera the photos would have had to have been preserved for evidence. As some others have correctly stated any person place or thing in a public area maybe photographed. There is no expectation of privacy in a public area. This applies to everyone not just celebrities. You may in fact sell those images without a release. You do not need a release to share them post them sell them or do anything you want with them. You can print them and sell them as art if you want no release needed. You can sell them to a magazine no release needed. The only time you would need a release is if you are using them for some "commercial" purpose which is defined by law as using to promote or advertise. So you can sell them to a newspaper but not to Pepsi to be used in an advertisement with out a release. You would need a release if you post them on your own website for the purpose of promoting your own photography business. so the law gets blurry in cases where there is some cross over. Let's say the OP was going to put those photos on display at an art show which people can come and purchase them He has every right to do that without release However any photos he uses to advertise or promote the show he must have a release for.
Morally and Ethically the OP had every right to photograph that child. He did nothing wrong. For those that said they would have deleted it because it was the ethical thing to do STFU! You don't know what you are talking about! He did nothing unethical. This is how art is made and history is recorded what was unethical was the behavior of the police. What would have been unethical was destroying images taken in public because someone insisted. By the way The sailor kissing a girl in time square and the Girl from Afghanistan did not have model releases and those are two of the most published pictures in history. The girl from Afghanistan I believe was a minor at the time. The photographer made a lot of money off that one and won a Pulitzer Prize NO Model release.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Never ever, at least in the State of Florida, photograph a child without the consent of the parents. Here it is the law.

Demianr

I have taken many photos of kids in public places and at events, including kids dancing jumping or just being cute. Mostly as part of an event of some sort.
A few have gone into the news paper that I regularly shoot for.
It is a first amendment issue.
If any parent or person objected, I would IMMEDIATELY delete it.
This is just common courtesy.
If you use that photo for any commercial purpose with out a signed release you are looking for a lawsuit.
I generally go up to a parent and give them my card and offer to send them a picture via e-mail if they are around.