Can I get in trouble for photographing a pretty kid?
Aug 30, 2018 21:05:32 #
mikegreenwald
Loc: Illinois
I’d be comfortable publishing it in something like a church newsletter that had many pictures of other people and events at the event. As a solo picture published elsewhere, I don’t believe you have the right to use it for any purpose without the parent’s permission.
Aug 30, 2018 21:52:39 #
Stephan G wrote:
And Life imitates Movies. Or so the mythology goes.
The likelihood of the scenarios noted above to happen are slim to none.
The likelihood of the scenarios noted above to happen are slim to none.
Totally agree. To prevent my camera from being stolen, I never take it with me, always leaving it locked up in my bank's safe deposit box.Naptown Gaijin wrote:
I would also include for religious reasons. Found that out when I was at a group dinner in Turkey decades ago. I was taking group shots of the customers, and SOME politely asked me not to. No problem, they moved to the side and I continued. But from then on, when in Islamic areas, I always ask first.Some people don't want to be photographed for valid reasons. These include undercover law enforcement officers, undercover intelligence officers, and some military folks in special operations jobs.
Rongnongno wrote:
Again in Harbin, China, from my hotel window, I took a photo of a pretty girl in sexy shorts (call the thought police now) on a street corner texting on her mobile. I must need flogging because I didn't run down 8 flights of stairs to ask her permission first. You probably ascribe prurient intent on my part, but for me, it's a great example of how modern China is, even out in the provinces. So it has become a 'legal issue' for some, for other it is fuzzy as hell.
For me it is not. Capturing stealthily images of an unknown kid or adult because he/she pretty is simply wrong. It is not about 'legality' but 'ethics'.
Then again when you read most of UHH arguments that involves ethics most folks here do not seem to be able to draw a line, regardless of subject.
For me it is not. Capturing stealthily images of an unknown kid or adult because he/she pretty is simply wrong. It is not about 'legality' but 'ethics'.
Then again when you read most of UHH arguments that involves ethics most folks here do not seem to be able to draw a line, regardless of subject.
Full disclosure: 30 minutes later I was out on the street, and she was still there. My only thought was that whoever was making her wait was a fool, though in hindsight, it might just have been a bus.
Aug 30, 2018 22:02:47 #
bpulv
Loc: Buena Park, CA
Davethehiker wrote:
I think I found a way that makes me feel safer abo... (show quote)
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that a written official request to photograph an event in and of itself would necessarily protect you if the law in your particular state either by statute or interpreted by precedence banned your subject matter. Every state is different and you should become familiar with the applicable laws in your state.
That being said, I would not use a photograph of a child for any commercial or non-commercial public display without a model release. Unfortunately, even if you are legally right, the law allows everyone to sue anyone on any tort. Even if you get a case thrown out of court, it will cost you to do that; i.e., if you win you lose.
Aug 30, 2018 22:04:11 #
If you call a "male" kid pretty, Yes you are definitely in trouble. Some may even say perverted.
Aug 30, 2018 22:23:37 #
stanperry wrote:
I was offering an opinion to the only person to whom this discussion is relevant, not you. If you just like arguing, go elsewhere.
There are dozens of these. You are breaking several laws. You can't even reproduce a photo published in Facebook without breaking copyright laws. But go ahead.
http://www.fox8live.com/story/30572878/people-posting-your-photos-without-permission-its-illegal/
Aug 30, 2018 22:30:07 #
Dave, First; YES, absolutely you can get in trouble for photographing a pretty kid, and before you know it.
The minister in your photo looks like a younger Donald Sutherland. Decades ago, when privacy was expected and respected as a rule, the pros I worked with carried different release/waver forms, for models, weddings, parents/kids, and one that covered almost everything. Short forms were preferred when doing street photography. In those days the work was a combination of respect, and CYA, which doesn't stand for Catholic Youth Association. When you ask for permission to shoot photos, chances are you won't have problems later. I haven't worked for some years and there wasn't an internet then, but some things don't change. Courtesy always repays you many times over when remember you're always a pro.
When working in churches, ministers always made sure the entire flock signed off on photographs for any other event. If someone objected, they weren't asked to participate, and didn't sign the form. Always, with kids, it's always be extremely cautious; parents should always be present; don't touch them, that's why the parents are there. Now more than ever. If you don't have a release form from both parents, don't bother and never post it, if you decide to shoot anyway. A local minister was arrested on suspicion of kiddie porn; it wasn't true in this case. The feds rousted him out of bed at 3AM and hauled him away in his PJs with TV cameras rolling. They loaded his home computer and the contents of his home office into waiting trucks, with police dogs running everywhere. He was a kind soul who had never harmed anyone and didn't know about firewalls, hacking, nor the danger of keeping photos taken which contained kids at church summer camp on his personal computer; most people don't think about that, and seldom secure their work machines, much less their home computer. Later it was determined to be a hack or setup that may have occurred because of a disgruntled former church member. The photos had gone onto the web and the damage couldn't be undone. If you think it couldn't happen to you, think again. Local media have no conscience, and like nothing better than having camera present whenever any sort of arrest is made; charges involving kids are at the top of the list, and the truth takes a back seat. When you protect yourself with a photographer's release waver, it can make a huge difference. You might think there's no such thing as privacy, so you should be able to make any shot you please. Remember your rights can also be placed in jeopardy; unless you have immediate proof to the contrary, there's no longer anything such as innocent until proven guilty, when you're in cuffs on the local news. This minister's case was dismissed within a month, but he was never the same man again. He'd been an ordained minister for over 50 years and served as a chaplain in Burma during WWII. He never would have harmed anyone. When the words abuse or kiddie porn are spoken on TV, it's the same crazed hype designed to make people's emotions take a deep dive. Such charges are tragic if true and even more so when they are untrue; lives are ruined in every case. Be careful in your work; that's the power of photography. Not all situations are fraught with peril, if you remain aware. There is no shot that's ever worth offending any potential subject's sensibilities. Humans are difficult and why so many of us have chosen wildlife photography.
No matter how angelic, I'd unfortunately never choose to make the photo of a pretty child, not under the age of 18 in today's society and not unless the parents requested it and signed the release/waiver. If you were moved in the moment to grab that shot anyway, or believe you can't get a release, I'd advise deleting the image. There are more than enough people who have beautiful kids, and will be happy to pay for good photos of them, but not if you don't ask. If you find images on your camera that you can sell, going back to pay a one-time modeling fee of $10 or $20 can save you a great deal of grief. It's a very mercenary, litigious society and isn't the same country I worked in all those years ago. If you're lucky enough to have your own studio, it's far easier to work with families, if not always as much fun. I made a living for years photographing families and kids and did a large volume of regional work. I never had an incident with a child, but parents, yes; they're always worse than kids. I recall that there was a hard of hearing couple, who had difficulties sitting on a standard posing bench' suddenly they bolted. They hadn't understood what the assistant said when she tried to request they re-position their bodies. The minister quickly handled a sensitive and difficult problem but when people don't know you, they'll usually think the worst; sadly. many people are like that. Churches were always the the best places I worked (notwithstanding weddings). People were always dressed nicely and were mostly well-behaved, but simple misunderstandings can affect the entire job, and your life when you least expect it.
We used standard model releases when we did street shoots. Sometimes people don't care when you're taking photos on a busy street, considering the millions of CCTV cameras that didn't exist 20 years ago. If people don't see you take their photos, and if there's young kids involved, as long the photo isn't released or published you might be slide by, but digital is forever if it's online. If a mother see some guy taking photos of her kids on the swing set with a long lens, you may find yourself under arrest, or merely being sued. If you're compelled to take candid photos of kids, ingratiate yourself with the parents; ask first and always offer the incentive of great photos at low prices, if parents will sign a release/waiver. If you sell of publish photos not covered by a release and someone tracks the photos back to you, it can cost you plenty for that oversight. People have become extremely vicious at times, when they feel they've been wronged, even when it's not true. Remember those ever present lawyer commercials; you deserve to be compensated. That's what they claim. In some areas, people are still friendly and are happy to sign a release if you give them your card and don't look like you crawled out of a gutter, so dress for success. In any environment, when someone objects loudly about the photographer, it's spoils everything for everyone. Be prepared to adapt quickly; carrying a few $s with your model release forms doesn't hurt, compared to a lawsuit.
The proposition of claiming you always have the right to make photographs of anyone and everyone who's in public, only works if you're a member of the press/or elite media. Those media/news personalities (AKA journalists) aren't the kindly souls they always seem to be each night; most aren't hardworking photographers. Public officials/politicians, law enforcement or others on the public payroll, don't have as much right to privacy when they're in public places. Politicians have never seen a camera they didn't like unless one catches them in private and delicate circumstances. Some police officers don't mind photographs these days, if you don't shove a camera in their face like it's a gun, since they all wear body cams now, so it seems fair enough. Other cops still manage to intimidate photographers, and some have caused damage to expensive cameras, in the heat of the moment. Never trespass or shoot photos through people's windows, unless you work for Homeland. Many new laws protect younger kids from paparazzi at all times, ie, anyone with a camera. Some of those guys wouldn't think twice of outrunning a herd of buffalo, if they could get shots of their target. A few TV and news departments have developed more sensitivity, if not empathy as of late, and no longer automatically show gory accidents except at long distances, and hardly ever shoot footage of young kids; they have been known to blur faces of younger kids unless they need ratings; grief always serves their need. That's not what most photographers sign up for. If you ever saw photos of a loved one's smashed-up car, you know how terrible it feels. These are the realities that we as photographers have to try to balance when we depress the shutter.
Considering how many billions of images are added online daily, most pro photographers don't make their living that way. If you aren't with the press, or are considered a tourist, many local populations will pet their lamas, burros, camels, sheep, dogs/cats or whatever critter is handy, and smile at your camera if you have cash; it's considered part of the tour package. If you have a jacket that says TV/press, they'll usually ignore you. Canada used to be a photographers dream, if you didn't mind the cold. Haven't been there lately, but our friends up north are usually fine with cameras if you don't overdo it. Good luck and happy shooting. sv
The minister in your photo looks like a younger Donald Sutherland. Decades ago, when privacy was expected and respected as a rule, the pros I worked with carried different release/waver forms, for models, weddings, parents/kids, and one that covered almost everything. Short forms were preferred when doing street photography. In those days the work was a combination of respect, and CYA, which doesn't stand for Catholic Youth Association. When you ask for permission to shoot photos, chances are you won't have problems later. I haven't worked for some years and there wasn't an internet then, but some things don't change. Courtesy always repays you many times over when remember you're always a pro.
When working in churches, ministers always made sure the entire flock signed off on photographs for any other event. If someone objected, they weren't asked to participate, and didn't sign the form. Always, with kids, it's always be extremely cautious; parents should always be present; don't touch them, that's why the parents are there. Now more than ever. If you don't have a release form from both parents, don't bother and never post it, if you decide to shoot anyway. A local minister was arrested on suspicion of kiddie porn; it wasn't true in this case. The feds rousted him out of bed at 3AM and hauled him away in his PJs with TV cameras rolling. They loaded his home computer and the contents of his home office into waiting trucks, with police dogs running everywhere. He was a kind soul who had never harmed anyone and didn't know about firewalls, hacking, nor the danger of keeping photos taken which contained kids at church summer camp on his personal computer; most people don't think about that, and seldom secure their work machines, much less their home computer. Later it was determined to be a hack or setup that may have occurred because of a disgruntled former church member. The photos had gone onto the web and the damage couldn't be undone. If you think it couldn't happen to you, think again. Local media have no conscience, and like nothing better than having camera present whenever any sort of arrest is made; charges involving kids are at the top of the list, and the truth takes a back seat. When you protect yourself with a photographer's release waver, it can make a huge difference. You might think there's no such thing as privacy, so you should be able to make any shot you please. Remember your rights can also be placed in jeopardy; unless you have immediate proof to the contrary, there's no longer anything such as innocent until proven guilty, when you're in cuffs on the local news. This minister's case was dismissed within a month, but he was never the same man again. He'd been an ordained minister for over 50 years and served as a chaplain in Burma during WWII. He never would have harmed anyone. When the words abuse or kiddie porn are spoken on TV, it's the same crazed hype designed to make people's emotions take a deep dive. Such charges are tragic if true and even more so when they are untrue; lives are ruined in every case. Be careful in your work; that's the power of photography. Not all situations are fraught with peril, if you remain aware. There is no shot that's ever worth offending any potential subject's sensibilities. Humans are difficult and why so many of us have chosen wildlife photography.
No matter how angelic, I'd unfortunately never choose to make the photo of a pretty child, not under the age of 18 in today's society and not unless the parents requested it and signed the release/waiver. If you were moved in the moment to grab that shot anyway, or believe you can't get a release, I'd advise deleting the image. There are more than enough people who have beautiful kids, and will be happy to pay for good photos of them, but not if you don't ask. If you find images on your camera that you can sell, going back to pay a one-time modeling fee of $10 or $20 can save you a great deal of grief. It's a very mercenary, litigious society and isn't the same country I worked in all those years ago. If you're lucky enough to have your own studio, it's far easier to work with families, if not always as much fun. I made a living for years photographing families and kids and did a large volume of regional work. I never had an incident with a child, but parents, yes; they're always worse than kids. I recall that there was a hard of hearing couple, who had difficulties sitting on a standard posing bench' suddenly they bolted. They hadn't understood what the assistant said when she tried to request they re-position their bodies. The minister quickly handled a sensitive and difficult problem but when people don't know you, they'll usually think the worst; sadly. many people are like that. Churches were always the the best places I worked (notwithstanding weddings). People were always dressed nicely and were mostly well-behaved, but simple misunderstandings can affect the entire job, and your life when you least expect it.
We used standard model releases when we did street shoots. Sometimes people don't care when you're taking photos on a busy street, considering the millions of CCTV cameras that didn't exist 20 years ago. If people don't see you take their photos, and if there's young kids involved, as long the photo isn't released or published you might be slide by, but digital is forever if it's online. If a mother see some guy taking photos of her kids on the swing set with a long lens, you may find yourself under arrest, or merely being sued. If you're compelled to take candid photos of kids, ingratiate yourself with the parents; ask first and always offer the incentive of great photos at low prices, if parents will sign a release/waiver. If you sell of publish photos not covered by a release and someone tracks the photos back to you, it can cost you plenty for that oversight. People have become extremely vicious at times, when they feel they've been wronged, even when it's not true. Remember those ever present lawyer commercials; you deserve to be compensated. That's what they claim. In some areas, people are still friendly and are happy to sign a release if you give them your card and don't look like you crawled out of a gutter, so dress for success. In any environment, when someone objects loudly about the photographer, it's spoils everything for everyone. Be prepared to adapt quickly; carrying a few $s with your model release forms doesn't hurt, compared to a lawsuit.
The proposition of claiming you always have the right to make photographs of anyone and everyone who's in public, only works if you're a member of the press/or elite media. Those media/news personalities (AKA journalists) aren't the kindly souls they always seem to be each night; most aren't hardworking photographers. Public officials/politicians, law enforcement or others on the public payroll, don't have as much right to privacy when they're in public places. Politicians have never seen a camera they didn't like unless one catches them in private and delicate circumstances. Some police officers don't mind photographs these days, if you don't shove a camera in their face like it's a gun, since they all wear body cams now, so it seems fair enough. Other cops still manage to intimidate photographers, and some have caused damage to expensive cameras, in the heat of the moment. Never trespass or shoot photos through people's windows, unless you work for Homeland. Many new laws protect younger kids from paparazzi at all times, ie, anyone with a camera. Some of those guys wouldn't think twice of outrunning a herd of buffalo, if they could get shots of their target. A few TV and news departments have developed more sensitivity, if not empathy as of late, and no longer automatically show gory accidents except at long distances, and hardly ever shoot footage of young kids; they have been known to blur faces of younger kids unless they need ratings; grief always serves their need. That's not what most photographers sign up for. If you ever saw photos of a loved one's smashed-up car, you know how terrible it feels. These are the realities that we as photographers have to try to balance when we depress the shutter.
Considering how many billions of images are added online daily, most pro photographers don't make their living that way. If you aren't with the press, or are considered a tourist, many local populations will pet their lamas, burros, camels, sheep, dogs/cats or whatever critter is handy, and smile at your camera if you have cash; it's considered part of the tour package. If you have a jacket that says TV/press, they'll usually ignore you. Canada used to be a photographers dream, if you didn't mind the cold. Haven't been there lately, but our friends up north are usually fine with cameras if you don't overdo it. Good luck and happy shooting. sv
Aug 30, 2018 22:57:52 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
Common sense is a religious event with family members is not a place to publish photos from.
Today we must be careful what photos we take and how we use them. Legal is just a thought.
Private gatherings have the right to want privacy. And parents today are very suspicious because
of our insane media.
Today we must be careful what photos we take and how we use them. Legal is just a thought.
Private gatherings have the right to want privacy. And parents today are very suspicious because
of our insane media.
Aug 30, 2018 23:44:04 #
Your little voice is very intelligent. Don't make the photograph public. I don't think you break a law in most states, but there are some states with laws against any photo of any person without permission. Today however it is probably best to have a parent's permission to show a photo of a child. You take a chance of getting into a civil lawsuit which could get you more trouble than the photo is worth and whether or not you earn anything of value is not the issue.=
Davethehiker wrote:
I was at church picnic this past Sunday. I had my ... (show quote)
Aug 31, 2018 06:02:23 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
I would think you would have the same 'Trouble' as you would, by photographing an 'Ugly' kid.
Aug 31, 2018 09:11:26 #
Hamltnblue
Loc: Springfield PA
With all the news regarding the Church these days, I wouldn't even bring a camera to the event.
Is it really necessary to have the pic of someone's "pretty" kid?, especially a close-up.
Post it with the parents finding out and expect a knock on the door.
If you have similar pics of other kids, I would suggest removing them. The stories of police raids resulting in computer searches happen all the time.
You wouldn't look too good in the news, even if you are honest.
Is it really necessary to have the pic of someone's "pretty" kid?, especially a close-up.
Post it with the parents finding out and expect a knock on the door.
If you have similar pics of other kids, I would suggest removing them. The stories of police raids resulting in computer searches happen all the time.
You wouldn't look too good in the news, even if you are honest.
Aug 31, 2018 09:21:45 #
Read my response...by your way of thinking, we can not take photos on the streets, parks, etc. You are wrong, read this..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
You can shoot all you want in public, but if people's faces show, you can do nothing with the photo without a model release.
Here's another thought, you can not photograph anything that is recognizable and be bee traced to the owner, and post it, even in public streets. It is not against the law to say. If you do and try to list them on a photo selling site, they will reject them...
In short you can shoot all day. But if anyone or anybody is recognizable, get a model release.
Now, Florida may be different in the near future, as they are trying to make it illegal to photograph agriculture, even from public property.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
You can shoot all you want in public, but if people's faces show, you can do nothing with the photo without a model release.
Here's another thought, you can not photograph anything that is recognizable and be bee traced to the owner, and post it, even in public streets. It is not against the law to say. If you do and try to list them on a photo selling site, they will reject them...
In short you can shoot all day. But if anyone or anybody is recognizable, get a model release.
Now, Florida may be different in the near future, as they are trying to make it illegal to photograph agriculture, even from public property.
Stephan G wrote:
The answer, in the USA, is "No". *Is it illegal to take photos of people without their permission (when on public land or venue).*
The gray area is more to do with what can be done with the photograph. Also, "Invasion of Privacy" is defined several different ways depending on jurisdiction.
By the way, "CLIO" are the awards given for best advertisements.
The gray area is more to do with what can be done with the photograph. Also, "Invasion of Privacy" is defined several different ways depending on jurisdiction.
By the way, "CLIO" are the awards given for best advertisements.
Aug 31, 2018 09:26:41 #
Leitz
Loc: Solms
Davethehiker wrote:
I was at church picnic this past Sunday. I had my ... (show quote)
Was the kid dressed?
Aug 31, 2018 11:09:37 #
I would not take Wikipedia as the best or final word on any subject personally...
Aug 31, 2018 12:36:44 #
frankraney wrote:
Now, Florida may be different in the near future, as they are trying to make it illegal to photograph agriculture, even from public property.
Now, Florida may be different in the near future, as they are trying to make it illegal to photograph agriculture, even from public property.
That would be one of the dumbest laws but almost all states have useless laws on the books. So if I wanted to take a picture of an orange grove in FL that would be illegal???? Doesn't make any sense.
I think NJ has a law that makes it illegal to take pictures from the shoulder of a road...probably due to public safety?
Aug 31, 2018 12:41:28 #
WF2B wrote:
I never take or save pictures of kids without the parents permission and would not post them anywhere without WRITTEN permission from the parents to do so. As far as that minister goes I am not sure. My philosophy "better to be safe than sued."
Bud
Bud
=================
Yep!!!
This is the Correct thing to DO.
=0=
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.