Strangers Photographing Both You And Your Dog Whilst Out In Public

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

great great article

what are we becoming when a parent cannot take photos of their child in the bath

........ in the US. There, mothers who have taken nude family snaps of their children have been denounced as child pornographers or charged with child abuse. Framing Innocence, a new book by Lynn Powell, tells the story of Cynthia Stewart, an Ohio school bus driver who, in 1999, was threatened with a 16-year jail sentence for taking photographs of her eight-year-old daughter, Nora, in the bath. Even after a court-appointed guardian for the child recommended the charges be dropped, they were aggressively pursued. She eventually avoided trial by agreeing to counselling and to having the nude photos of Nora destroyed.

[raz]

what are we becoming when a parent cannot take photos of their child in the bath

Weirdos and rockspiders.

Imagine a tourist rocking up to the famous Bondi beach and pulling out his/her camera only to be jumped on by cops. Unbelievable.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

what are we becoming when a parent cannot take photos of their child in the bath

Weirdos and rockspiders.

Imagine a tourist rocking up to the famous Bondi beach and pulling out his/her camera only to be jumped on by cops. Unbelievable.

to be honest i am reeling a bit from that article and i need to have a think but my initial thoughts are that as a society we don't know how to deal with the internet and the associated potential lack of privacy and therefore we are clamping down on things before they are a problem.

because of the internet bad people have more access to vulnerable people so we are clamping down on possible issues.

we are also bombarded with bad things...the information age makes news and events so much easier for us to access but it seems that all we get is the bad news which feeds into paranoia

it is all so sad that we are where we are

eta i am the first to say vulnerable people need protecting but i am not sure we are going about it the right way

Edited November 12, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[raz]

it is all so sad that we are where we are

If the hostility and suspicion Rex Dupain has experienced had prevailed when his dad was working, would Max Dupain have taken such shots? "Not a hope," says the great photographer's son.

Imagine that - we'd be without all of that history documented in such a beautiful way, which is where your kids will be when they get to your age - missing out on a huge slab of documented culture happening right now.

[raz]

OK so I really have to ask the question. I'm a stranger on the beach with a camera, doesnt matter if I'm male or female, a local or a tourist, I take a photo of your kid who is wearing shorts and a t shirt building a sandcastle. Nothing in the photo indicates where the beach is. What exactly is it that a parent thinks I'm going to do with the photo?

The reason I ask is that I just dont understand - probably because my intent when I take a photo is purely innocent.

[huga]

Personally, I'd be fine with that - as long as you didn't come off as a crazy kid stalker of anything. Because:

(a) It's not unusual for people to take pics of my kids (because they are rooolly ridiculously good looking ).

(b) They're not nude, so I don't get that weird vibe about where the photo will end up.

ETA But keep in mind that I enjoy photography, so totally get where you are coming from. And there are lots of photos of my kids online.

Edited November 12, 2010 by huga

[raz]

Personally, I'd be fine with that - as long as you didn't come off as a crazy kid stalker of anything. Because:

(a) It's not unusual for people to take pics of my kids (because they are rooolly ridiculously good looking ).

(b) They're not nude, so I don't get that weird vibe about where the photo will end up.

ETA But keep in mind that I enjoy photography, so totally get where you are coming from. And there are lots of photos of my kids online.

Yes they ARE ridiculously goodlooking!

But my question is, what is it that someone is likely to do with a photo? Maybe I'm just too naive - I dont have a clue what a person with evil intent is going to do with one.

Like the example given in Ashanali's article - Rex Dupain cant even take photos of his own kids at a sporting carnival. Sure it's because someone else's kids might end up in the photos but you cant tell me the other parents wouldnt know who he is and would think he's going to do something nasty with it.

[huga]

I guess I would just assume that you were going to keep it for memories sake along with your other beach pics.

Or maybe your are a bit of a budding photographer and you might post it online for a bit of cc or something.

My mind doesn't automatically think sinister, but then, I guess I'm not a suspicious person by nature.

[raz]

My mind doesn't automatically think sinister,

Same here but I dont have kids so I wonder if I'd change my mind if the boot was on the other foot

[WreckitWhippet]

My mind doesn't automatically think sinister,

Same here but I dont have kids so I wonder if I'd change my mind if the boot was on the other foot

Probably not, I have one and tend to think like you do now. I love candid photography, no matter what the subject and the setting.

[helen]

An interesting and relative article...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/...6-1225930635070

When Ken Duncan can't even take a photo of a sunrise without getting in trouble I think things have gone way too far

Edited November 12, 2010 by helen

[raz]

Ridiculous isnt it. It's amazing he doesnt throw in the towel, same as Rex Dupain

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i have been thinking...ok so a photographer takes a shot, innocent and a good photo, subject immaterial.

now we are told the photographer can't take any more shots like this because some people may view this photo with evil intent.

so the photographer and all of us with no evil intent are punished because society/law makers etc are too lazy or too overwhelmed to fix the base problem that we have bad people in our midsts that they/we dont want here

this is truly a case of the lowest common denominator setting the standard

Edited November 12, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[raz]

this is truely a case of the lowest common denominator setting the standard

Yep!

[Ashanali]

Like the example given in Ashanali's article - Rex Dupain cant even take photos of his own kids at a sporting carnival. Sure it's because someone else's kids might end up in the photos but you cant tell me the other parents wouldnt know who he is and would think he's going to do something nasty with it.

When Casey was at pre-school they had an end of year party. I gave Casey the camera and told him to go take photos of his friends. He had so much fun and his friends were posing and getting in to it... at the end of the night the pre-school teacher told me that I shouldn't have had a camera there and that it doesn't matter who took the photos, there was no permission granted.

Seriously, a five year old child was somehow a threat??

This IS how ridiculous it has become.

[raz]

Oh good god that is insane.

JaxxBuddy made a good point, though - is it the fear of not what the photographer's intent is but the intent of a viewer somewhere down the track? eg If Casey posts those photos up on the internet and some creepy perve gets his jollies looking at the photos

[Ashanali]

Oh good god that is insane.

JaxxBuddy made a good point, though - is it the fear of not what the photographer's intent is but the intent of a viewer somewhere down the track? eg If Casey posts those photos up on the internet and some creepy perve gets his jollies looking at the photos

There will always be someone somewhere who will get their jollies off anything. Some people get off on people with crooked teeth, some people get off on pictures of women's feet, some people are oddly attracted to inanimate objects. This is not going to stop me posting photos of brides with crooked teeth, putting their shoes on during the course of their wedding day.

Of course, I only post tasteful photos on our website but even those can be picked out by 'the wrong sort'... heck, even a KMart catalogue is fodder for some people!!

What I'm saying is the element has always been there in society, it's just more public now that freaks are among us. If people start sanitising because of the freaks, then there will be nothing left to put online... because ANYTHING can be seen as 'attractive' by some people.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Ashanali

[raz]

What I'm saying is the element has always been there in society, it's just more public now that freaks are among us. If people start sanitising because of the freaks, then there will be nothing left to put online... because ANYTHING can be seen as 'attractive' by some people.

Yep I totally agree with you.

[raz]

Another question, to the people on here who object to a stranger taking a photo of you walking your dog down the street or of your kids etc, do you confront the person with the camera?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Oh good god that is insane.

JaxxBuddy made a good point, though - is it the fear of not what the photographer's intent is but the intent of a viewer somewhere down the track? eg If Casey posts those photos up on the internet and some creepy perve gets his jollies looking at the photos

There will always be someone somewhere who will get their jollies off anything. Some people get off on people with crooked teeth, some people get off on pictures of women's feet, some people are oddly attracted to inanimate objects. This is not going to stop me posting photos of brides with crooked teeth, putting their shoes on during the course of their wedding day.

Of course, I only post tasteful photos on our website but even those can be picked out by 'the wrong sort'... heck, even a KMart catalogue is fodder for some people!!

What I'm saying is the element has always been there in society, it's just more public now that freaks are among us. If people start sanitising because of the freaks, then there will be nothing left to put online... because ANYTHING can be seen as 'attractive' by some people.

totally agree with you but it is the reason this is happening so if anything is to be done this needs to be taken into account.

edited to clarify

what i mean is if photographers are in general ok and they have no evil intent, why are they being policed, why isn't energy being put into managing/stopping the people causing the issue?

i will answer that one too..because it is easier to spot someone with a camera than it is to spot a paedophile so we are in this situation because the powers to be are lazy or they can't think of a solution

Edited November 12, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy