Man spotted taking photos of children graves park

[holymoses]

Lets keep it on topic, its a interesting debate the pro's and cons of public photography.

Whether its right or politically incorrect to take photos that may or may not include kids in public Sheffield Park.

 

Is it a over zealous parenting swayed by tabloid hype or is it everyone with a camera is a perv and should be made to eat greggs pasties until they are sterilised.

[Wingfield]

Would the OP be just as confrontational if the photographer had been female?

Or how about if there was no camera, but the wooly-hatted man was just looking at the child (from 5m away of course).

[Looker]

And I'll bet you cannot provide any evidence that stopping photos in public would prevent this.

 

No it wouldn t and doesn't prevent this. But, what happened to the op should not have happened. The camera he had was trained on his/her child, for what reason? The least the photographer could do, was give an explanation for it, no matter in what manner he was asked. I certainly in that position would want an explanation. If the photographer had legit reasons for taking the photos other than personal use, then that decision could be made either way at that time. If I didn t want him to use a pic of my child, as a parent, I would expect him to delete the pic if asked without a debate, not run off. But for personal use then I would not give permission for the go ahead. If taking photos or filming a school play as a parent, the filming would be of your own child and only shown to family and close friends. Yes other children would be in there but they would be of no interest to myself , my partner/husband or my family or my friends. My brother is a professional photographer and he wouldn 't dream of hanging around parks taking pics of 'anybodies' children unless requested by parents.

[Cyclone]

How can you compare CCTV, which not only has a legitimate purpose (and in some cases are their for our protection) with a random person with a camera??

 

They're both taking images of your children, potentially stealing their soles... (presumably meaning they get wet socks).

 

---------- Post added 02-02-2015 at 15:30 ----------

 

You have your opinion, i have mine

 

I would not be happy with someone whom i have no association coming up to my child and intentionally photographing them - simple as that.

 

What you permit with your own Children is entirely your concern

 

What you permit of course is governed by the law. You have no right or ability to stop someone taking photos in public. Your only response would be to grab your child and run away from the evil photographer.

[Obelix]

No it wouldn t and doesn't prevent this. But, what happened to the op should not have happened. The camera he had was trained on his/her child, for what reason? The least the photographer could do, was give an explanation for it, no matter in what manner he was asked. I certainly in that position would want an explanation. If the photographer had legit reasons for taking the photos other than personal use, then that decision could be made either way at that time. If I didn t want him to use a pic of my child, as a parent, I would expect him to delete the pic if asked without a debate, not run off. But for personal use then I would not give permission for the go ahead. If taking photos or filming a school play as a parent, the filming would be of your own child and only shown to family and close friends. Yes other children would be in there but they would be of no interest to myself , my partner/husband or my family or my friends. My brother is a professional photographer and he wouldn 't dream of hanging around parks taking pics of 'anybodies' children unless requested by parents.

 

If you ask in a confrontational manner you should expect an obstructive response. I suspect that'd what happened here.

 

You don't own a public space. That's, er. like why they are public spaces. The OP asked for a reason, and was given one. If you don't like the reason, the answer is simple. Don't go to a public place where you or your child may have a photograph taken of them.

[Cyclone]

No it wouldn t and doesn't prevent this. But, what happened to the op should not have happened. The camera he had was trained on his/her child, for what reason? The least the photographer could do, was give an explanation for it, no matter in what manner he was asked. I certainly in that position would want an explanation. If the photographer had legit reasons for taking the photos other than personal use, then that decision could be made either way at that time. If I didn t want him to use a pic of my child, as a parent, I would expect him to delete the pic if asked without a debate, not run off. But for personal use then I would not give permission for the go ahead. If taking photos or filming a school play as a parent, the filming would be of your own child and only shown to family and close friends. Yes other children would be in there but they would be of no interest to myself , my partner/husband or my family or my friends. My brother is a professional photographer and he wouldn 't dream of hanging around parks taking pics of 'anybodies' children unless requested by parents.

The important point that you're missing is that he doesn't need any ones permission to use the photo for anything he likes.

[littlebasher]

*Your only response would be to grab your child and walk away from the photographer.

 

Guess what, that's exactly what i would have done - as you say, it's not illegal, but going by the posts so far there are plenty of other kids in the park whose parents won't mind.

 

For some reason, you all seem to assume that i suspect the photographer is a paedophile or other wacko. I make no assumptions about his reasons for taking the pictures, other than i wouldn't want him taking them of my kids.

 

 

 

* I've edited your quote so it appears you're participating in adult discussion.

[tinfoilhat]

Fortunate then that the law doesn't care if you are too happy or not.

 

---------- Post added 02-02-2015 at 14:29 ----------

 

 

I best not mention sleeping in a field with a pile of kids this weekend then.

 

Oh and taking photos as well.

 

We didn't need a paediatrician though, despite what the old dear over the road thought.

 

Also when explaining to friends why you are late to a social engagement because of car trouble, say you've crashed your old ford motor car. Don't say you've just buggered a 14 year old escort.

[Obelix]

Also when explaining to friends why you are late to a social engagement because of car trouble, say you've crashed your old ford motor car. Don't say you've just buggered a 14 year old escort.

 

Oi. You owe me a new keyboard mines full of coffee now :-)

 

That's brilliant. Must remember it...

[holymoses]

No it wouldn t and doesn't prevent this. But, what happened to the op should not have happened. The camera he had was trained on his/her child, for what reason? The least the photographer could do, was give an explanation for it, no matter in what manner he was asked. I certainly in that position would want an explanation. If the photographer had legit reasons for taking the photos other than personal use, then that decision could be made either way at that time. If I didn t want him to use a pic of my child, as a parent, I would expect him to delete the pic if asked without a debate, not run off. But for personal use then I would not give permission for the go ahead. If taking photos or filming a school play as a parent, the filming would be of your own child and only shown to family and close friends. Yes other children would be in there but they would be of no interest to myself , my partner/husband or my family or my friends. My brother is a professional photographer and he wouldn 't dream of hanging around parks taking pics of 'anybodies' children unless requested by parents.

 

Once a photographer has taken a pic that's their property, whether it is a professional or someone with a phone. They are quite within their rights to refuse to delete it.

 

There is one of the most iconic pictures of the late 60's early 70's by Nick Ut, that I'm sure you all have seen and are familiar with, no one bats an eyelid at and yet it has been shown all around the world without censorship or protest. Still today it is used to depict the outrage and innocent victims of war. The photograph of a naked girl running down a road was awarded the Pulitzer prize. http://www.people.com/article/nick-ut-napalm-girl-photo-kim-phuc

 

Would that photo be acceptable these days?