Photographing children

In article , says...
I agree. A personal anecdote from my own experience:

As some of you may recall, Terry Pratchett has a throwaway line in one of
his early Discworld books about a Mr. Hong's takeaway restaurant.

As it turns out, in a local shopping mall near here we have a Chinese
fast-food joint called "Hong's Restaurant", or something close to that.
I grabbed a quick shot of the restaurant, to email to a friend of mine.
The owner came storming out, incensed, and demanded I erase the image.
(I assume she had some fantasy about domestic terrorism or the like).

Needless to say, I refused to comply with these ridiculous demands.
I pointed out to her that as I was standing in a public place, and
there were no identifiable people in the shot, there was very little
she could do (especially as the frontage was probably owned by the
mall, and she only leased the space). She claimed she'd already
called the police, and seemed surprised when I was only too happy
to wait for them to arrive (they never did, of course). In the end
she satisfied herself with noting the registration on my car, and
went back inside.



Perhaps she thought you were from Immigration.

G
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article . com,
Larry wrote:

It seems that to some people, a man with a camera is automaticaly "suspect"
while to other people (the police officer among them) a man with a camera is
just a man with a camera.

I think its just the mindset of a small, nervous, self important segment of
the public at large that causes most of what some might call "Photographer
Harrasment".

I agree. A personal anecdote from my own experience:

As some of you may recall, Terry Pratchett has a throwaway line in one of
his early Discworld books about a Mr. Hong's takeaway restaurant.

As it turns out, in a local shopping mall near here we have a Chinese
fast-food joint called "Hong's Restaurant", or something close to that.
I grabbed a quick shot of the restaurant, to email to a friend of mine.
The owner came storming out, incensed, and demanded I erase the image.
(I assume she had some fantasy about domestic terrorism or the like).

Needless to say, I refused to comply with these ridiculous demands.
I pointed out to her that as I was standing in a public place, and
there were no identifiable people in the shot, there was very little
she could do (especially as the frontage was probably owned by the
mall, and she only leased the space). She claimed she'd already
called the police, and seemed surprised when I was only too happy
to wait for them to arrive (they never did, of course). In the end
she satisfied herself with noting the registration on my car, and
went back inside.


If you were in a mall you were on private property.

In article . com,
Larry wrote:

It seems that to some people, a man with a camera is automaticaly "suspect"
while to other people (the police officer among them) a man with a camera is
just a man with a camera.

I think its just the mindset of a small, nervous, self important segment of
the public at large that causes most of what some might call "Photographer
Harrasment".

I agree. A personal anecdote from my own experience:

As some of you may recall, Terry Pratchett has a throwaway line in one of
his early Discworld books about a Mr. Hong's takeaway restaurant.

As it turns out, in a local shopping mall near here we have a Chinese
fast-food joint called "Hong's Restaurant", or something close to that.
I grabbed a quick shot of the restaurant, to email to a friend of mine.
The owner came storming out, incensed, and demanded I erase the image.
(I assume she had some fantasy about domestic terrorism or the like).

Needless to say, I refused to comply with these ridiculous demands.
I pointed out to her that as I was standing in a public place, and
there were no identifiable people in the shot, there was very little
she could do (especially as the frontage was probably owned by the
mall, and she only leased the space). She claimed she'd already
called the police, and seemed surprised when I was only too happy
to wait for them to arrive (they never did, of course). In the end
she satisfied herself with noting the registration on my car, and
went back inside.


If you were in a mall you were on private property.

In article ,
says...
So the police should investigate absolutely everything unless they have
a reason NOT to do so?

Do I sometimes take pictures of kids??? Yes, a lot of them, but NEVER where
I
cant let people know that I am doing it.

Why the fascination with kids? That sounds unhealthy.



Well, since children make up a LARGE portion of the of the population, it
behooves all photographers who sell their wares to be able to photograph the
kids.

At most horse shows at least 50% of the riders are under 16 years old, why
would I want to avoid photographing them and selling a print to the family or
the club????

As for the police investigation all complaints, it depends on the complaint,
they are expected to use DUE DILIGENCE. That means, a call because there is
a black man in the area usually gets ignored (its legal to be black), while a
report of someone photographing children might get investigated (he COULD be
up to something illegal, and thats what cops look into, simple enough???

Common sense is supposed to apply. Police departments have been sued for not
investigating reasonable reports of trouble. When it comes to children,
almost all reports are looked into.

Of course if you wish to live somewhere that the police don't answer calls
unless there is blood in the streets, there are places like that, and you are
welcome to go.



In certain parts of London being black is probably enough to be stopped and
searched, it's like South Africa over here, only with political correctness
thrown in. "Excuse me sir, I have reason to believe you are black in a built
up area".

In article ,
says...
So the police should investigate absolutely everything unless they have
a reason NOT to do so?

Do I sometimes take pictures of kids??? Yes, a lot of them, but NEVER where
I
cant let people know that I am doing it.

Why the fascination with kids? That sounds unhealthy.



Well, since children make up a LARGE portion of the of the population, it
behooves all photographers who sell their wares to be able to photograph the
kids.

At most horse shows at least 50% of the riders are under 16 years old, why
would I want to avoid photographing them and selling a print to the family or
the club????

As for the police investigation all complaints, it depends on the complaint,
they are expected to use DUE DILIGENCE. That means, a call because there is
a black man in the area usually gets ignored (its legal to be black), while a
report of someone photographing children might get investigated (he COULD be
up to something illegal, and thats what cops look into, simple enough???

Common sense is supposed to apply. Police departments have been sued for not
investigating reasonable reports of trouble. When it comes to children,
almost all reports are looked into.

Of course if you wish to live somewhere that the police don't answer calls
unless there is blood in the streets, there are places like that, and you are
welcome to go.



In certain parts of London being black is probably enough to be stopped and
searched, it's like South Africa over here, only with political correctness
thrown in. "Excuse me sir, I have reason to believe you are black in a built
up area".

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:37:30 +1200, retoohs
wrote:

We just had a prominent lawyer and council member, Wayne Mckeague here
in Queenstown, New Zealand arrested by customs and police for
downloading such images. If he had just browsed on the internet he would
have been within the law but as soon as he downloaded them customs had
him for importing objectable material. His court case is in progress at
present but he has said he will plead guilty. He has already resigned
from the council and will be disbarred from the Law Society. Even though
this type of photography as on this website that was shut down is on the
lower end of the scale society just won't accept it now.

Alan

By "such images", are we speaking of pics of children swimming, in
public, in swimsuits?
A politician is being persecuted and prosecuted for this?
Really?
Is Queenstown becoming a Theocracy?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:37:30 +1200, retoohs
wrote:

We just had a prominent lawyer and council member, Wayne Mckeague here
in Queenstown, New Zealand arrested by customs and police for
downloading such images. If he had just browsed on the internet he would
have been within the law but as soon as he downloaded them customs had
him for importing objectable material. His court case is in progress at
present but he has said he will plead guilty. He has already resigned
from the council and will be disbarred from the Law Society. Even though
this type of photography as on this website that was shut down is on the
lower end of the scale society just won't accept it now.

Alan

By "such images", are we speaking of pics of children swimming, in
public, in swimsuits?
A politician is being persecuted and prosecuted for this?
Really?
Is Queenstown becoming a Theocracy?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

retoohs wrote:
Mike Kohary wrote:

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 06:32:40 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Wayan writes:


Here is one story:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1290905.htm


Even if the author of the Web site had been using the photos for shady
purposes, the only question that raises is one of image publishing
rights.

The laws against child pornography are designed _in principle_ to
prevent children from being directly harmed to produce the images. In
practice, unfortunately, the laws are used to impose a moral code upon
others, and have nothing to do with protecting children.

In this case, no children were harmed by simply being photographed while
swimming. For those parents who find it offensive, well, life is tough.
They can sue the webmaster for publishing images without a model
release, but that's about it. And if the images are group images and
are not being used for commercial purposes, their chances of winning are
highly variable, depending on the jurisdiction.

I don't understand why people are upset by things like this. Like the
article says, there's nothing pornographic about the photos. And nobody
was harmed by them.



It's not about being harmed, but being exploited. You don't even have
to know the photographs were being taken to be exploited by them. The
article stated that there was sexually oriented material elsewhere on
the website. If the clear intent of posting swimming children was to
create sexual excitement for the pedophile community, it's a Good
Thing it was shut down. That's not "impos(ing) a moral code upon
others", it's just common sense decency.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We just had a prominent lawyer and council member, Wayne Mckeague here
in Queenstown, New Zealand arrested by customs and police for
downloading such images. If he had just browsed on the internet he would
have been within the law but as soon as he downloaded them customs had
him for importing objectable material. His court case is in progress at
present but he has said he will plead guilty. He has already resigned
from the council and will be disbarred from the Law Society. Even though
this type of photography as on this website that was shut down is on the
lower end of the scale society just won't accept it now.

Alan

At this rate, in a few years, it will be illegal to make a photograph of
anyone under 18. Pretty darn stupid, if you ask me!


--
Ron Hunter

retoohs wrote:
Mike Kohary wrote:

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 06:32:40 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Wayan writes:


Here is one story:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1290905.htm


Even if the author of the Web site had been using the photos for shady
purposes, the only question that raises is one of image publishing
rights.

The laws against child pornography are designed _in principle_ to
prevent children from being directly harmed to produce the images. In
practice, unfortunately, the laws are used to impose a moral code upon
others, and have nothing to do with protecting children.

In this case, no children were harmed by simply being photographed while
swimming. For those parents who find it offensive, well, life is tough.
They can sue the webmaster for publishing images without a model
release, but that's about it. And if the images are group images and
are not being used for commercial purposes, their chances of winning are
highly variable, depending on the jurisdiction.

I don't understand why people are upset by things like this. Like the
article says, there's nothing pornographic about the photos. And nobody
was harmed by them.



It's not about being harmed, but being exploited. You don't even have
to know the photographs were being taken to be exploited by them. The
article stated that there was sexually oriented material elsewhere on
the website. If the clear intent of posting swimming children was to
create sexual excitement for the pedophile community, it's a Good
Thing it was shut down. That's not "impos(ing) a moral code upon
others", it's just common sense decency.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We just had a prominent lawyer and council member, Wayne Mckeague here
in Queenstown, New Zealand arrested by customs and police for
downloading such images. If he had just browsed on the internet he would
have been within the law but as soon as he downloaded them customs had
him for importing objectable material. His court case is in progress at
present but he has said he will plead guilty. He has already resigned
from the council and will be disbarred from the Law Society. Even though
this type of photography as on this website that was shut down is on the
lower end of the scale society just won't accept it now.

Alan

At this rate, in a few years, it will be illegal to make a photograph of
anyone under 18. Pretty darn stupid, if you ask me!


--
Ron Hunter

retoohs wrote:
Mike Kohary wrote:

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 06:32:40 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Wayan writes:


Here is one story:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1290905.htm


Even if the author of the Web site had been using the photos for shady
purposes, the only question that raises is one of image publishing
rights.

The laws against child pornography are designed _in principle_ to
prevent children from being directly harmed to produce the images. In
practice, unfortunately, the laws are used to impose a moral code upon
others, and have nothing to do with protecting children.

In this case, no children were harmed by simply being photographed while
swimming. For those parents who find it offensive, well, life is tough.
They can sue the webmaster for publishing images without a model
release, but that's about it. And if the images are group images and
are not being used for commercial purposes, their chances of winning are
highly variable, depending on the jurisdiction.

I don't understand why people are upset by things like this. Like the
article says, there's nothing pornographic about the photos. And nobody
was harmed by them.



It's not about being harmed, but being exploited. You don't even have
to know the photographs were being taken to be exploited by them. The
article stated that there was sexually oriented material elsewhere on
the website. If the clear intent of posting swimming children was to
create sexual excitement for the pedophile community, it's a Good
Thing it was shut down. That's not "impos(ing) a moral code upon
others", it's just common sense decency.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We just had a prominent lawyer and council member, Wayne Mckeague here
in Queenstown, New Zealand arrested by customs and police for
downloading such images. If he had just browsed on the internet he would
have been within the law but as soon as he downloaded them customs had
him for importing objectable material. His court case is in progress at
present but he has said he will plead guilty. He has already resigned
from the council and will be disbarred from the Law Society. Even though
this type of photography as on this website that was shut down is on the
lower end of the scale society just won't accept it now.

Alan

At this rate, in a few years, it will be illegal to make a photograph of
anyone under 18. Pretty darn stupid, if you ask me!


--
Ron Hunter