chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Taking pics is one thing; posting on the internet - I would not, unless it was my kid and just sharing with relatives and friends (turn "public posting" OFF).

I once took a few nice pics of some kids playing with "bubble man" in the park - he would entertain kids and adults with huge colorful bubbles he would make. But I would not post them anywhere not even here since they are not my kids (yes, even though they were in public in a public park).

Rongnongno Loc: FL

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.

microdac

I said "press" release. I meant a model release.

quick235 Loc: Niagara Falls, NY

Very good shot of the cheerleader in the rain. One to be very proud of-wished I had made it.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Yes, I know my post seemed a bit "over the top".

Several years ago, I was serving as an elder and vice-president of the board of directors of our church. The pastor called an informal meeting of some of the senior members of the church. A fairly new member was noted taking pictures of individual children and groups of children. One mother had done some research and found him on Megan's List, a public listing of registered MDSO's. The church has a policy that all were welcome, but requested such persons to confidentially inform the pastor; this person had not done so. It was the first time any of us (including the pastor) had encountered the situation and the pastor asked the senior church leaders for advice. You might not expect this, but I was the one hold-out, insisting on positive identification before taking any action. It was finally agreed that the pastor would meet with the member and ask him directly. The member confirmed that the identification was correct and voluntarily resigned from our congregation. We later found out that he had joined a neighboring church, but had revealed his status to the pastor. I saw him several times thereafter, and we privately discussed his situation. He regretted not informing our pastor and wished to return to worship with us. But the original mother had spread the word, and the pastor (and senior council) were unable to allow him to return. When we (as a group) gave a brief explanation of the situation to the congregation (without specific details), we were asked the identity of the (then former) member. As one of the spokespersons for the council, I took the opportunity to inform the congregation that the name would not be revealed. The pastor went on to thank the (anonymous) mother for her concern and asked everybody who knew to remain silent regarding the identity stolen of the individual. Since turnover was significant, his name has never been revealed. That is why I am overly suspicious of such possibilities to this day.

Michael1079 Loc: Indiana

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

The safest thing to do is always ask permission if it is a solo shot. If a group shot in a public space it 's safe. Just don't use the photos for professional gain without permission. This does take away from spontaneity in street photography but America is a litigation hell. When living in The Netherlands these questions never arose. Hell you couldn't sue for malpractice there unless the DR. admitted that he/she made a mistake.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

The minister sent me the letter that I requested. I dug up a badge with my photo on it and lanyard I can wear around my neck that identifies me as a photographer.

I'll go through with it now and turn all the images over to the church.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I guess you may as well give the church a letter giving them the rights you wish to confir to the church. Then when you turn the photos over to the church you can close the deal...

Diamond41 Loc: St. Louis, MO

Need to make a point here, the user states 3 churches got to together and they are using a Public Park. Later he states signs were put up saying all are welcome. The problem here not legality, it is ethics. He is legal because the event is occurring in a known public venue and expectations of privacy go out the window. Ethically, I would not publish in any format with discussing with the parents. They may like the photo but not want it published for many reasons and to go against that is what is wrong. They may hate the photo and order you to destroy the photo. You should and promptly. Now, if an event occurs that makes it news worthy, that crosses another line. It then falls to the publication involved. I remember covering a tornado strike at a mobile park. Best shot I made was of a 6 year old holding a doll walking back to the front of the park. Was it newsworthy, yes, it told a story. Was it published, yes. Would I have taken it otherwise probably not without finding the parents. Many photographers now days throw ethics out the window and don't understand why they get sued later or worse go to jail. The real question is ethics. And as for working other events, have the churches involved sign a contract to say you are the event photographer. They should also publish that an "Event Photographer" will be present. You should get a vest or badge stating the same.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Taking the picture in this situation is not problem. But displaying the photo could be a very different story. It would be best to get a model release from the parents where they compensation (nominal fee, 8 X 10, etc.). Unless you use it for porn or some other inappropriate way, that would more than likely keep you out of a courtroom.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

I'm curious. Why do you think there's a difference between a solo shot and a group shot? We've all seen pictures of groups (crowds at athletic events, concerts, parades, etc) where individuals are identifiable. I don't think the laws regarding the 'expectation of privacy' in public venues makes any distinction.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Find Waldo:

He is the pretty kid in this crowd.

(Download)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

So now you're a comedian?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Ill refer you back to my stadium TV shot...broadcast or not... And don’t try to tell me you read the fine print on the ticket before buying it...😎