Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Who cares if the law does not prohibit the photographing of children in public, you SHOULD have honored the mothers request to delete the photo. When "photographers" behave like this, it's no wonder photographers inherent such a bad reputation. If a parent or guardian requests that you delete the photo of their child, throw out your "rights" in this type of situation and instead do what's RIGHT for them not for yourself....it's their child not your. :) By the way, you stated the possibility of the mothers movies as to why she did not want the child photograph. Maybe in her mind, your motive was perversion? Just a thought. :)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I am a big fan of the great street photographers in the history of photography. Some people have asked why anyone would want to photograph strangers, especially kids, without permission on the street. Some even say it is creepy. But if the great street photographers like Henri Cartier Bresson had been required to ask permission before shooting, we would be missing a huge chunk of the greatest photographs ever taken. And to curtail the opportunity to follow in their footsteps today would be unacceptable. I'm sure active, skilled street photographers (which I am not) know they might sometimes offend people, and figure out strategies to lessen that. I have even seen at least one photographer who appears to intentionally piss people off to get photos of pissed off people. That offends me, but the first amendment still covers offensive art.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

You may be right, although I question the credentials of a resident of a foreign country. But, in all fairness, should not the law be presented in context and in its entirety:

§ 8316. Unauthorized use of name or likeness.
(a) Cause of action established.--Any natural person whose name or likeness has commercial value and is used for any commercial or advertising purpose without the written consent of such natural person or the written consent of any of the parties authorized in subsection (b) may bring an action to enjoin such unauthorized use and to recover damages for any loss or injury sustained by such use.
(b) Parties authorized to bring action.--Such action may be brought by:
(1) The natural person.
(2) A parent or guardian of a natural person, if the natural person is a minor.
(3) If such natural person is deceased, any person, firm or corporation authorized in writing to license the commercial or advertising use of the natural person's name or likeness by the natural person during the natural person's lifetime or by will or other testamentary device; an executor named in a will or designated by a court of competent jurisdiction; or where there is no such authorization, then by the deceased person's surviving spouse at the time of death until the surviving spouse's death or, in a case where there is no surviving spouse, then any other heir or group of heirs having at least a 50% interest in the deceased person's estate as provided for under law.
(4) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such natural person to license the commercial or advertising purposes of the person's name or likeness.
(c) Repose.--No action shall be commenced under this section more than 30 years after the death of such natural person.
(d) Immunity.--No person, firm or corporation, including their employees and agents, in the business of producing, manufacturing, publishing or disseminating material for commercial or advertising purposes by any communications medium shall be held liable under this section unless they had actual knowledge of the unauthorized use of the name or likeness of a natural person as prohibited by this section.
(e) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"Commercial or advertising purpose."
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the term shall include the public use or holding out of a natural person's name or likeness:
(i) on or in connection with the offering for sale or sale of a product, merchandise, goods, services or businesses;
(ii) for the purpose of advertising or promoting products, merchandise, goods or services of a business; or
(iii) for the purpose of fundraising.
(2) The term shall not include the public use or holding out of a natural person's name or likeness in a communications medium when:
(i) the natural person appears as a member of the public and the natural person is not named or otherwise identified;
(ii) it is associated with a news report or news presentation having public interest;
(iii) it is an expressive work;
(iv) it is an original work of fine art;
(v) it is associated with announcement for a commercial or advertising purpose for a use permitted by subparagraph (ii), (iii) or (iv); or
(vi) it is associated with the identification of a natural person as the author of or contributor to a written work or the performer of a recorded performance under circumstances in which the written work or the recorded performance is lawfully produced, reproduced, exhibited or broadcast.
"Commercial value." Valuable interest in a natural person's name or likeness that is developed through the investment of time, effort and money.
"Communications medium." Includes, but is not limited to, a newspaper, magazine, book, newsletter, billboard, telephone, radio, television, recording, computer software, digital communications network, transit ad, audiovisual work or global communications network.
"Expressive work." A literary, dramatic, fictional, historical, audiovisual or musical work regardless of the communications medium by which it is exhibited, displayed, performed or transmitted, other than when used or employed for a commercial or advertising purpose.
"Name" or "likeness." Any attribute of a natural person that serves to identify that natural person to an ordinary, reasonable viewer or listener, including, but not limited to, name, signature, photograph, image, likeness, voice or a substantially similar imitation of one or more thereof.
"Natural person." A living person or a deceased person who was domiciled within this Commonwealth at the time of such person's death.
(Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1320, No.154, eff. 60 days)

Tet68survivor Loc: Pomfret Center CT

Well discretion is the better part of valor, especially if the kid has an irrate Dad! Could be painful!

Digital1022 Loc: Holland, PA

You may be well versed in federal law, but you don't know crap about state law and in the case of privacy or taking unauthorized pictures of children or adults, state law governs. Therefore, before I made too many assertions about your lawyer and that you would win hands down, you might want to review your state's statutes on the matter. Don't know where you reside, but in PA and NJ, you won't win with the argument that there is no "federal law". The case will never go to federal law or federal court unless you want to try to make the case that somehow your right is protected under the bill of rights or federal statute. If you bother to review the case law in the state like PA, federal law never enters the process and if you took an image of an individual without his consent, you and your lawyer will probably find yourself in front of a state jury. Good luck with that one.

Tet68survivor Loc: Pomfret Center CT

Yes your right about Cops and law but if you argue, they'll bust your head and camera!

dpfoto Loc: Cape Coral, FL

That's why it's nice to have a camera with TWO cards (Nikon D800 for example). In a case like this, just remove the unused card from the camera and give it to them. Everyone happily goes their merry way, and YOU still have the images.

Tet68survivor Loc: Pomfret Center CT

👍👍👍

Nature_Shooter Loc: Chesterfield Missouri

Regardless of what the law states, in a case like this, just delete the picture. I get standing up for principle, however, in today's society, I can understand a parent being cautious/protective. They may have a very good reason for not having their child photographed by themselves that is none of your business. Since the only purpose of having the picture is for a contest, what is the harm in deleting it? Pick and choose your battles wisely. This was not a case to do battle.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

My thoughts also. Couldn't agree more. This is a case where any reasonable person would understand that the protection of one's child ALWAYS trumps the "photographer's" chances in a contest.

How about hiring a model and getting a release instead of exploiting someone else's child?

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...hahaha...done that!

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

There is no right to expect privacy on a public street. If that were the case, Paparazzi's would be out of a job. Photos taken in a public setting are legal. There are exceptions when it comes to military bases and some government installations.
In the case of a minor as a subject, common courtesy should prevail by asking a parent or guardian for permission. I would even tell them I will send them a copy or print if they were okay with the shot. If they refuse permission, I would find another subject and move on, even though you had a legal right to photograph the subject without getting it. Never heard of, read, or was told about "isolation" of a subject. Really can't blame the parent, but cops were ignorant of the law. It was probably not worth pushing it to make a point, but had your situation resulted in an arrest and deletion of your images, it would have been grounds for a lawsuit.
Suggest taking a look at this short video.
https://www.aclu.org/...rights/photographers-what-do-if-you-are-stopped-or-detained-..

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

First, the photo was not going to be used for promotional or publicity purposes, so it might be outside the scope of the New Jersey law.

Second, your source, DMLP, has not updated the information presented since 2014. 3 years of cases may have changed or even invalidated some or all of NJ's law.

It also doesn't seem to impact the right of the photographer to take the image, but only impact what they may do with it later.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Great research. It's appreciated. However, this entire entry begs the questions. What is an unnatural person? Do unnatural persons have any protections at all? I think you can see where this is going. Apparently, this was of some importance to the person/people who wrote this. It'd be interesting to find out why this was of sufficient importance to specify "natural".

Oh, and for all those opposed to deleting an image. Remember a deleted image can be recovered. Just take the card with the image out of the camera, insert a new one and resume photographing. Of course, it's best to do the card swap discretely.
--Bob

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

It is such a simple answer to this situation.
Why would you want to go against the parents wishes? How embarrassing to have your wants supersede such a simple request from the child's parent. Have some common decency!