OK i've been on the group a bit and i've played with my camera alot. To further my skills im doing a GCSE in photography and really enjoying it. Our first pattern and texture project went really well.

Our second project is portraits. I always try to look for something a bit different from the rest of the class. I had an idea that 3 or 4 photos of homeless / tramps (i know its probably not the right word but thats what some of the older ones are) They have interesting faces that look like they have a lifetime of stories in the lines.

What is the law regarding photographing people. Ideally i would ask if i could take their photo but i'm not sure how some would take it, and i don't want to offend.

I read somewhere that you need cocent forms signing but with some homeless that could prove a real stumbling block. Is this necessary just for a college project?

Any advice would be really useful. Thanks

First I can't help you with the legal side of taking photos of people, but even if the law states that you can take photos please ..do take care.
Some can be violent, but most should be happy to oblige if you ask them in the right way first.
So if you can give these people a little reassurance before you take your camera out of it's case,
by explaining what you want and why and getting on the right/ friendly side with them this should make you and your subjects feel more relaxed.
Perhaps having three or four fifty pence pieces in your pocket would not go amiss, like you stated 'some have interesting faces' and also some very interesting stories to go with them.
Not all are alcoholics or drug addicts like most people think, and I have met some who are far from being poverty stricken.
Personally I would say you're more at risk from the general public than from your subjects, there's always someone like a so called 'do gooder' who likes to to stick there nose into situations.
So having your subject/s on your side goes a long way to help you,
And as about the law, it's against the law take photos of people who are institutionalized but i can't
see this has any standing if a person is out on the streets and has no were to live.
Hope this helps you,
m&p :)

You should be OK if they are (a) all there mentally [not drunk etc] and (b) you're not selling the images for commercial gain. Otherwise you'll need a model release and the section where they enter their home address, phone and email contacts etc could be difficult if they're truly homeless. Also, if they can't read, they are null and void as they cant possibly agree to the stuff written on the release :(

If no release is used, make sure its on public land and they agree to the photo taken and are of age of consent. Bring someone for safety - the subject may be OK but what are the others doing behind your back :suspect:

from a purely legal pov u can take pics of what u like in a public place. People included. Only legally need permission if using pic commercially.

Thanks for that, very useful. It clarifies things a bit. Just need to see the exact details of the project now.

Cuey, just to add to this it is against the law to take photos of Children.
You should not go down that road unless you have the permission of the parents which these days would be very difficcult to obtain.
Also do not take photos of schools while the Children are playing out.
I know you would be genuine in your work but there are some dodgy people out there and this area is best avoided at all cirumstances.

Cuey, just to add to this it is against the law to take photos of Children....
I'm not sure it is actually illegal...just inadvisable.

Cuey, just to add to this it is against the law to take photos of Children.


No it's not. Please do not spread disinformation.

No it's not. Please do not spread disinformation.

Believe me, it is against the law to take photos of children in school yards.
It is a recent addition but you can be knicked for it.
17 people have been arrested this year in Westminster for taking photos of Children.

Believe me, it is against the law to take photos of children in school yards.
It is a recent addition but you can be knicked for it.
17 people have been arrested this year in Westminster for taking photos of Children.
Well if they walk round with a camera in one hand, and the other down there y fronts they deserve it don't they.:D

Believe me, it is against the law to take photos of children in school yards.
It is a recent addition but you can be knicked for it.
17 people have been arrested this year in Westminster for taking photos of Children.

Sorry but this kind of thing has come up in threads here before and someone will start out saying "it's illegal" then change to "well it's illegal when [some condition]" and then change to "well I wouldn't do it".

So can we just skip all the middle section and agree that it's not illegal? Either that or if you can find the bill online that states that it is illegal that'd do, too.

So can we just skip all the middle section and agree that it's not illegal?
LMAO!

Though I wouldn't be suprised if this government had made picture taking illegal - they seem to like banning things :suspect:

Back to the school yard thing (playground in UK :P), if the school/council as owners of the site were to put up signs saying 'no photography' then, yes I believe it would then become illegal as the landowner had made it clear (of course there is the debate about wether school grounds are actually publically owned.... :hihi:)

LMAO!

Though I wouldn't be suprised if this government had made picture taking illegal - they seem to like banning things :suspect:

Back to the school yard thing (playground in UK :P), if the school/council as owners of the site were to put up signs saying 'no photography' then, yes I believe it would then become illegal as the landowner had made it clear (of course there is the debate about wether school grounds are actually publically owned.... :hihi:)


Yes indeed if there's a case where a landowner has refused permission, then you can't shoot there. However, you could, say, stand on the pavement and shoot whatever you wanted (some government buildings excepted what with those anti-terror laws.)

Selling the shots is a different story. Even then though it'd be a civil matter I expect, rather than a criminal one.

In a way I am not impacted by this, because I have no interest in taking shots of random kids, it just annoys me that some things are seen as being wrong when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. It's judgement on good people as though they were bad. That is, it assumes that anyone taking photos of kids has ill intent. The problem with that is that it's all too easy for that kind of opinion to spread to cover a wider spectrum (IE all people with cameras in public are bad.)

Yes indeed if there's a case where a landowner has refused permission, then you can't shoot there. However, you could, say, stand on the pavement and shoot whatever you wanted (some government buildings excepted what with those anti-terror laws.)

Selling the shots is a different story. Even then though it'd be a civil matter I expect, rather than a criminal one.

In a way I am not impacted by this, because I have no interest in taking shots of random kids, it just annoys me that some things are seen as being wrong when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. It's judgement on good people as though they were bad. That is, it assumes that anyone taking photos of kids has ill intent. The problem with that is that it's all too easy for that kind of opinion to spread to cover a wider spectrum (IE all people with cameras in public are bad.)


So you think its right taking photos of kids though its all with good intent.
Who cares about your good judgement, at the end of the day you take photo's of children in any guise you are doing wrong.
Todays society as we know is not what it once was, theres the internet for one thing, you have access to this as I do and any photos taken of kids can easily land on the net, as they do, infact there is no such thing as good intent.
Photo's of kids should be taken by there own parents or under a controled enviroment like school photo days.

You can bellow as much as you want that its not against the law or I'm a good guy who has good intent, the ruling is YOU DO NOT TAKE PHOTOS OF CHILDREN.
Apologies to the author of this thread as its now gone of the topic but my advise was simply avoid taking photos of kids, just advise which is what you asked for and if others can only see that as scaremongering then why bother replying to this thread in the first place.

So you think its right taking photos of kids though its all with good intent.
Equally you seem to assume that taking pics of kids *must* mean that person has some ill intent.

Who cares about your good judgement, at the end of the day you take photo's of children in any guise you are doing wrong.
Because people like you assume the worst of everyone.

Todays society as we know is not what it once was, theres the internet for one thing, you have access to this as I do and any photos taken of kids can easily land on the net, as they do, infact there is no such thing as good intent.
So putting a picture online prove mal-intent? :confused::loopy:

You can bellow as much as you want that its not against the law or I'm a good guy who has good intent, the ruling is YOU DO NOT TAKE PHOTOS OF CHILDREN.
As far as I can see - it is YOUR ruling.

...my advise was simply avoid taking photos of kids...
Which is sound advise - but ONLY to avoid the agro from parents caused by the the paranoia created by folks such as yourself.

Who, while I don't doubt their good intent, are perhaps slightly misinformed.

So you think its right taking photos of kids though its all with good intent.
Who cares about your good judgement, at the end of the day you take photo's of children in any guise you are doing wrong.
Todays society as we know is not what it once was, theres the internet for one thing, you have access to this as I do and any photos taken of kids can easily land on the net, as they do, infact there is no such thing as good intent.
Photo's of kids should be taken by there own parents or under a controled enviroment like school photo days.

You can bellow as much as you want that its not against the law or I'm a good guy who has good intent, the ruling is YOU DO NOT TAKE PHOTOS OF CHILDREN.
Apologies to the author of this thread as its now gone of the topic but my advise was simply avoid taking photos of kids, just advise which is what you asked for and if others can only see that as scaremongering then why bother replying to this thread in the first place.

See, your entire response is exactly the kind of overblown, dramatic, fear-inducing reply that I was refering too.

I think it's very sad that you consider anyone taking a photo of a child to be doing a bad thing. It's even sadder that you are actually representative of a growing section of the population that is willing to judge every photographer as if they were a peado.

You are right in one respect, though, and that is that the OP asked for advice. My advice is be careful out there, because there's any number of people willing to judge a photographer by the lowest common denominator, and some of them have a lot of latent anger that they will take out on you.

You can, in fact, see the reaction even on here of some people by how they get very angry and start talking in captials when you even so much as mention that it's actually legal to photograph kids, so I can leave you to imagine what some folk might do in "real life".

I take a lot of pictures of children, at the primary school my kids go to. I record many of the 'open' events, such as sports, orchestra performances, plays, awards assemblies, school trips etc and post a selection of pictures on the school website. Some of the pictures are used in school publications and I send some of the pictures to parents who request them. This is all on an amateur basis.

It is has proved impossible to get a clear legal position on this and different teachers and parents have different views on the law and morality of taking pictures of children. However, most seem happy to have the pictures to use in various ways!

As there are no clear guidelines, I have to set them myself: I only take pictures at events my kids are directly involved in, although I will take pictures of all kids there; I stop when anyone expresses a serious concern; I identify myself by name and as a parent whenever requested, calmly and without get upset about it; I never post children's names alongside the photos; I only supply photos to people I know personally; I am prepared to delete any photos when requested (this has only happened once and was part of a wider child protection issue).

If anyone does have a REAL idea of the law on this, please let us know. The recording of events involving children is important, to the children themselves, their parents and the school. However, uninformed speculation and ranting are of no use whatsoever.

Pete

See, your entire response is exactly the kind of overblown, dramatic, fear-inducing reply that I was refering too.

I think it's very sad that you consider anyone taking a photo of a child to be doing a bad thing. It's even sadder that you are actually representative of a growing section of the population that is willing to judge every photographer as if they were a peado.

You are right in one respect, though, and that is that the OP asked for advice. My advice is be careful out there, because there's any number of people willing to judge a photographer by the lowest common denominator, and some of them have a lot of latent anger that they will take out on you.

You can, in fact, see the reaction even on here of some people by how they get very angry and start talking in captials when you even so much as mention that it's actually legal to photograph kids, so I can leave you to imagine what some folk might do in "real life".

My capitals were not a sign of anger it is just to make it clearer to you as you are missing the point.
You see it as a photographers point of view, I see it as a parents point of view.
I do not persume every photographers a peodo I think that this should be played safe and for the safety of the child, you will never convince me that it is OK to photograph children without the permission of the parent, If that interferes with your good work then "tough".

Equally you seem to assume that taking pics of kids *must* mean that person has some ill intent.


Because people like you assume the worst of everyone.


So putting a picture online prove mal-intent? :confused::loopy:


As far as I can see - it is YOUR ruling.


Which is sound advise - but ONLY to avoid the agro from parents caused by the the paranoia created by folks such as yourself.

Who, while I don't doubt their good intent, are perhaps slightly misinformed.


If its not your child the Yes, who gives you the right to put a pic of someones child on the Net.

Is my ruling you say, why have 17 people in a small part of London been arrested this year for taking inocent photos of children.

So i am causing Paranoia am I.
Take a close look at the damage done to Childrens lives by photography.
Were not talking about family snaps here are we, we are talking about peple like you and me taking photographs of children who bare no relation or have no connection.
Thats right is it.:loopy:

If its not your child the Yes, who gives you the right to put a pic of someones child on the Net.

Is my ruling you say, why have 17 people in a small part of London been arrested this year for taking inocent photos of children.

So i am causing Paranoia am I.
Take a close look at the damage done to Childrens lives by photography.
Were not talking about family snaps here are we, we are talking about peple like you and me taking photographs of children who bare no relation or have no connection.
Thats right is it.:loopy:

What damage are you referring to?
I am happy to be persuaded that any photo of a child will cause damage to that child/family.

If you are meaning indecent pics then of course there is the line of decency that shouldn't be crossed. But please can you explain how a pic of (as a hypothetical example) bunch of kids playing football in park could be cause for concern?

I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative for the sake of it - I genuinely don't understand the damage you say it can do.

On the paranoia thing - yes I do believe posts like yours do encourage the paranoia.

My capitals were not a sign of anger it is just to make it clearer to you as you are missing the point.
You see it as a photographers point of view, I see it as a parents point of view.
I do not persume every photographers a peodo I think that this should be played safe and for the safety of the child, you will never convince me that it is OK to photograph children without the permission of the parent, If that interferes with your good work then "tough".

Thanks but if the captials were there for my benefit then there was no reason, as I am quite clear about what you are saying. The fact that I don't agree with you does not mean that I am "missing the point".

You are presuming all photogs to be peados, (or at the very least that the photo will be used for peado purposes) because otherwise there is no "harm" in taking a photo. Unless you follow the beliefs of some tribes who think that the photo steals your soul.

The fact remains that most photographs (of anyone) are taken by normal, well adjusted people and will not be used for evil purposes. Your stance assumes the opposite and presumes the worst.

Incidentally I didn't mention anything here about not obtaining permission.

Still, I've been here before and this subject just goes around in circles. I think I've made my point, so you can reply and have the last word if you want.

OK mate, I guess we differ in our opinions and though I understand were you are coming from I think I will stay away from further debates on this subject.

Wish you luck in the future and some good pics. :thumbsup:

Errrr I'm a bit confused :huh: I started a thread asking about taking portrait pictures of adult homeless people with verbal permission.

When and how did this turn into a question about kids. The last time i checked you didn't get many homeless in schools, and i never mentioned them.

This does however highlight the paranoia about photography. The assumption that a photo of a person must mean a kid and therefore done with illegal intent.

Errrr I'm a bit confused :huh: I started a thread asking about taking portrait pictures of adult homeless people with verbal permission.

When and how did this turn into a question about kids. The last time i checked you didn't get many homeless in schools, and i never mentioned them.

This does however highlight the paranoia about photography. The assumption that a photo of a person must mean a kid and therefore done with illegal intent.

Sorry Cuey, we did rather hijack your thread! If I were in your position, I would do some candids (no permission asked, from a distance, with telephoto) and some close-up shots after asking permission (these will naturally be more posed as this is what people do when they know they are being snapped). As long as this is all in a public place, there is no illegality. If anyone objects, it is only reasonable to delete the shots there and then. As someone else suggested, you may want to have someone else there to keep an eye on things, depending on where and when you are doing this.

Good luck with the project.

Sorry Cuey, we did rather hijack your thread! If I were in your position, I would do some candids (no permission asked, from a distance, with telephoto) and some close-up shots after asking permission (these will naturally be more posed as this is what people do when they know they are being snapped). As long as this is all in a public place, there is no illegality. If anyone objects, it is only reasonable to delete the shots there and then. As someone else suggested, you may want to have someone else there to keep an eye on things, depending on where and when you are doing this.

Good luck with the project.

Unless of course you're using a film camera, then you can't delete the images.
I've worked in photography professionally for many years and the law is very clear on taking photographs, use of, copyright etc.

1/If you are in a public area you can take a photograph of anything and anybody with or without their permission and you hold the copyright and do with it as you see fit unless using it for commercial gain or you use it to break some secondary law (such as using it with a caption that libels that person or other third party). This includes children. There are certain exceptions such as crime scenes etc.

2/If you are on private property you are not allowed to take photos without permission from the owner/tennant. This includes some council property such as schools where there is a presumption against anybody taking photos without permission. Permission is required from the Headteacher and this can vary from school to school depending on the age of the kids, the event being photographed and if the school has a number of 'protected' children studying there. Other council property such as public parks/playing fields etc have no such limitations.

3/ As a photographer you could conceivably be arrested for incitement if you were to become such a nuisance in poking your camera into somebody's face that they attacked you. Then you could be done for inciting violent behaviour.

4/ My advice for people wanting to take candid images of people is to buy a powerful telephoto zoom lens that keeps you at a distant from your subject and lets you shoot their natural behaviour. Posed shots can be boring.

Personally, I've noticed a different attitude in different areas of the city. In areas like Parsons Cross/Shiregreen/Firth Park you're looked at as if you're shooting a gun rather than a camera but in places like the Botanical Gardens/Endcliffe Park/Forge Dam I've had a number of people come up and ask me to photograph them, their kids, their mates etc. This is probably because there is more of a history of camera ownership in these areas than in the poorer parts of the city and therefore a better understanding of what photographers are all about.

My capitals were not a sign of anger it is just to make it clearer to you as you are missing the point.
You see it as a photographers point of view, I see it as a parents point of view.
I do not persume every photographers a peodo I think that this should be played safe and for the safety of the child, you will never convince me that it is OK to photograph children without the permission of the parent, If that interferes with your good work then "tough".

This kind of arrogance and ignorance astounds me. You don't own your children. You are their guardian until 18 but they are still first and foremost an individual.
How does a photograph of children playing football damage them? Unless they were looking at the camera and got clobbered by the ball.:hihi:

I've often wondered how Martin Parr gets away with photographing random people, especially the extreme close-ups!

LukeD, I would say that the term 'gets away with' photographing random people is a totally the wrong way of looking at what you are referring to.
There are lots of people out there who have no objection at all to being photographed, and some people even welcome having there photo taken,
being it in work, play or what ever.
But personally I would say that how one photographer can 'get away with' taking certain photos is purely by the way they approach people and the temperament that they have towards the subject/s before or even after taking a shot.
m&p

Well yes, but in the BBC's Imagine programme on Martin Parr, he is seen in an airport terminal blatantly photographing anyone who happened to walk past him. I didn't see him asking them if they minded beforehand!!!

Well yes, but in the BBC's Imagine programme on Martin Parr, he is seen in an airport terminal blatantly photographing anyone who happened to walk past him. I didn't see him asking them if they minded beforehand!!!
LukeD, your post was questioning as to "how Martin Parr gets away with photographing random people, especially the extreme close-ups!"
I gave my answer presuming that you was referring to the mentioned person (Martin Parr) as an individual photographer(on his own) not with a BBC back up crew on tail.
Not having seen the BBC's Imagine programme on Martin Parr,
I can't comment on the situation that you refer to.
m&p

This may be of interest to you,re - legality etc:-
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
There are plenty of other sites as well so which is the most correct/up to date I don't know.
PS. If you want shoot candid street shots,either buy a good telephoto lens and do it from a distance,or learn to shoot with the camera carried by your side (make sure the flash is off).

Re. Martin Parr, I've just found this

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000326/ai_n14285042

I have a friend who works for the council. They tell me that the council prefers not to take publicity shots of children if they do not have prior written permission. Even so, they pefer to act on the side of caution and not do the photo's in the first place. If you look at the coucnil website, you do not see many photos involving the public of any age unless they are people directly involved with Tenants & Residents Associations.

Interesting piece on BBC Look North tonight.

A guy photographinc people on the streets of Kingston-upon-Hull had his film seized by police, the reason been that he was taking photographs in a "covert manner".

Looks like he got his two rolls of 35mm back but Humberside Police couldn't specify which law the police used to confiscate the film, when asked by BBC Look North.

:(

Amendment:

Humberside Police apparently stated they used "common law" to confiscate the film

Humberside Police apparently stated they used "common law" to confiscate the film
The problem is the police are usually as clueless about the law regarding photography as are the general public. They messed up and are now trying to find an excuse would be my thoughts judging by past police idiocies in this area.

What is the law regarding photographing people. Ideally i would ask if i could take their photo but i'm not sure how some would take it, and i don't want to offend.

I read somewhere that you need cocent forms signing but with some homeless that could prove a real stumbling block. Is this necessary just for a college project?To go back to OP.
Sixsixsix is mostly correct, but a few more bit's of info.

You only really need a model release if used for commercial purposes. Commercial means in this case advertising or endorsing a product. Placing an image in an art gallery and selling it for £20,000 is not commercial, it's art!
Some magazines insist on one, but not for any good reason, they are getting as paranoid as PaulTankersly and for equally invalid reasons.

Recommending using a telephoto lens to capture someone is also a bit iffy as it can be construed as an invasion of privacy. Not if subject is on street, but if somewhere where they may expect not to be spied on, like in their garden, then that's a step too far. BTW some 'paparazzi' shots of celebs with long tele lenses are staged by the subject/PR chappie.
Also if you are noticed, by your subject, then you are far more likely to get a hostile reaction, compared to openly taking photos.

Being accused of inciting violent behaviour, through photographing someone. A tad unlikely. I'd be interested to see if there any sensible cases of that, let alone a sizeable no.



As for the paranoid nonsense like this about not photographing kids, dear me.:loopy:Who cares about your good judgement, at the end of the day you take photo's of children in any guise you are doing wrong.
Todays society as we know is not what it once was, theres the internet for one thing, you have access to this as I do and any photos taken of kids can easily land on the net, as they do, infact there is no such thing as good intent.Complete and utter bilge. World famous photographers, like Henri Cartier Bresson, probably would have been locked up by the loonie thinking as posited by PaulTankersly for such evil images like this
http://www.ldesign.com/Images/Essays/OnReality/OnReality%20Part%206/Henri-Cartier-Bresson12.jpg

It's crazy thinking like this that cause more harm to society, than the 'bad' people themselves do.
The same way headlines featuring a battered OAP, make OAPs the most scared to go out, when in fact they are the least likely to be attacked when out. And that's why it is news, because of it rarity.

Oops double post!

There's a fairly detailed article on the law (or lack of) relating to photography in this month's Digital Camera.

OK i've been on the group a bit and i've played with my camera alot. To further my skills im doing a GCSE in photography and really enjoying it. Our first pattern and texture project went really well.

Our second project is portraits. I always try to look for something a bit different from the rest of the class. I had an idea that 3 or 4 photos of homeless / tramps (i know its probably not the right word but thats what some of the older ones are) They have interesting faces that look like they have a lifetime of stories in the lines.

What is the law regarding photographing people. Ideally i would ask if i could take their photo but i'm not sure how some would take it, and i don't want to offend.

I read somewhere that you need cocent forms signing but with some homeless that could prove a real stumbling block. Is this necessary just for a college project?

Any advice would be really useful. Thanks


#With the public it goes like this, if it looks like the bloke may give you a slap for taking pictures of his wife and you are not big enough to defend yourself then go ahead snap away.

This is more up to date,as this is an old thread.
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html
Learn to shoot from the hip .

Trouble with shooting from the hip is if someone takes exception to it I'd imagine you'd have a harder argument ahead of you as you are apparently trying to conceal what you are doing and that is I think what upsets people as much as actually having their pic taken.

It is quite easy with a small compact,with flash and all noise off if you can.
Not with a SLR and zillion zoom lens.

The original question was about the legality of taking photos. The legal situation is quite clear - in a public place you can legally take what photos you want. The photographer then has copyright and can do what they want with the photos. And then there is the practical situation - officious security men, PCSO's, PC's and teachers who feel that a photographer must be up to something sinister . It no doubt is possible to get arrested by, or on behalf of, such people, but not convicted.

First the capital letter writing, now the incoherent ranting. Next the name calling.
These threads never change.
I notice this thread has moved away from the original posters subject and degenerated into a pit of self opinionated people arguing, can we get back to the point. The original poster never mentioned photographing children, it was just a side comment made by some one else. So, photographing street people is not illegal but you do need to take care. I once had such a person shouting at me in an underpass, and I felt that everyones sympathy was with him, so I left. Money will help. Another method is to use a long lens and stay out of sight.

My capitals were not a sign of anger it is just to make it clearer to you as you are missing the point.
You see it as a photographers point of view, I see it as a parents point of view.
I do not persume every photographers a peodo I think that this should be played safe and for the safety of the child, you will never convince me that it is OK to photograph children without the permission of the parent, If that interferes with your good work then "tough".

As a parent do you think that making things up about what is legal and illegal is a good example to set for your children?

Fortunately nobody has to convince you of anything, it's perfectly legal to take photos of children and nobody has been arrested in Westminster for it have they!

Even in the case DaFoot mentioned, where a school has a sign up saying no photography, that wouldn't make it illegal, people can put up any sign they like but they aren't all legally binding.

Even in the case DaFoot mentioned, where a school has a sign up saying no photography, that wouldn't make it illegal, people can put up any sign they like but they aren't all legally binding.
I'm not so sure that is correct, if you are on private land (a school counts I believe) and the owners and/or his representatives ask you to desist, you don't it could then become a form of trespass.

Now whether it would be possible to get any sort of prosecution or such is another matter, but continuing when asked not to on private land (eg by a sign) would be grounds for Police to get involved if the landowner (/agent) so felt.

That's right, at which point they've have the remedy of asking you to leave. It would only become a criminal offence if you refused.

A land owner can ask you to leave at any time of course for any or no reason, so the sign doesn't make any difference except to give you forewarning.

So you think its right taking photos of kids though its all with good intent.
Who cares about your good judgement, at the end of the day you take photo's of children in any guise you are doing wrong.
Todays society as we know is not what it once was, theres the internet for one thing, you have access to this as I do and any photos taken of kids can easily land on the net, as they do, infact there is no such thing as good intent.
Photo's of kids should be taken by there own parents or under a controled enviroment like school photo days.

You can bellow as much as you want that its not against the law or I'm a good guy who has good intent, the ruling is YOU DO NOT TAKE PHOTOS OF CHILDREN.
Apologies to the author of this thread as its now gone of the topic but my advise was simply avoid taking photos of kids, just advise which is what you asked for and if others can only see that as scaremongering then why bother replying to this thread in the first place.
You are the problem that needs dealing with.
And a quite serious problem you are too.

Never ceases to amaze me how many people still seem to believe photography will steal their soul.

To get back on track: I have found the best way to photograph people surreptitiously is with a good zoom and a flip-out screen. Lay the camera on a table or your lap and snap away using the screen to frame - even better if you have a remote shutter release. Quite a high failure rate but memory space is cheap. I always feel guilty taking photo's of possibly mentally-ill street folk by any technique other than directly asking first and so rarely do this.

Some photos of street photography with a disguised camera,before PC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12464386