This hilarious thing happened on the plane the other day. I never seen a situation go so left so quickly.

This old dude who apparently was a professional photographer and was maybe 60 was snapping pics from his window seat throughout the flight. I was in the aisle.

In front of us was a mom maybe in her 30's and her daughter who was like 3. Cute kid.

So at the end of the flight he was like "your daughter is so cute"

And the mom was like "thanks so much" and was happy and all smiling.

Then he said "I have a granddaughter that age. Your daughter was so well behaved on the flight" and then he gave her his business card.

So she was like "What's this for?"

And he was like "Oh I took some pics of her when we were at the gate while we were all waiting to board and thought you might like them" and she FLIPPED out on him.

Guess she was angry he was taking pics of her kid without her consent.

What say y'all? Was she wrong to flip? Was he wrong to take the pics of a little girl without her mom's permission? Was his only mistake trying to give the pics to her?

Poll question: Who wrong? Photographer or the mom?

Poll result (33 votes) Photographer (23 votes) Vote Mom (10 votes) Vote

***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

Both doing what they're supposed to.

Mom 'flipping out' might be too over the top, if I had to choose.

people are fucking weird

and stupid

thats what photographers do for practice in public settings

the mom is a fucking dumbass

what the photographer did was a very common thing

She went off on a guy for taking photos of her kid without her consent.

Whether legal or not, the photographer is wrong.

it's a public place...

what's wrong about it...nobody has been able to articulate that with anything except emotion

it's not illegal

inconsiderate at the most...but that's part of being a photographer

and considered ethical to practice your craft on candid non-volunteers

wtf

just said in case she ever wants professional pics.... but mom was over reacting.

since kids cant speak for themselves he should have gotten the mother permission before taking pictures of her kid.

is he wrong in mentioning it? for me anyway...

as a parent, if a photographer were to approach me and over convo divulge he snapped a couple pics earlier, based on his demeanor and the photos taken I would base my reaction on that.

If he's just a kindly gentleman, maybe 8th much

but if he's being creepy and snapping pics of Lil Amy bent over just tying her shoe I'm calling him a child pornographer at least


"i wanna hug all u idiotic bastards & then set you all on fire" -Bin

www.twitter.com/bedstuybetty
http://bedstuybetty.tumblr.com/
DROkayplayer: Giving you good puff since May '05

who knows where these photos will end up.

IDGAF if everyone else does it. Don't do that shit.

I wouldn't have gone off on him, I'd have simply said you do not have my permission to use those photos ever, anywhere. As a parent you literally have no idea where those photos could end up. It doesn't even have to bee the creep pedophile angle. This is the age of the internet, and my kids will not have any photos of them out there without my permission until such a time when they can give permission for themselves.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

to use photos of the child where the photos were taken in a public setting.

he has First Amendment protection and the mom doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her child's image as captured in public.

the same analysis that applies to paparazzi pix of celebs or file footage of random ppl captured by news agencies or those taken to be compiled for stock photography images would apply here - no reasonable expectation of privacy in public settings. especially these days where there are security cameras all over the place capturing our images. it's life now.

note: i recently represented a guy who was accused of taking pix of school children as they walked on a public sidewalk. he was charged w/disorderly conduct. the case was dismissed after i'd filed a motion to dismiss. it didn't even get to a hearing - the state's attorney dismissed after reading my motion.

as a photographer you can go with legal, and you can go with just plain human decency.

incidentally would this law cover the perv snapping photos of women on the street?

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

if he's taking the pix for his personal collection. and if he's taking underskirt pix, of course.

but the perv could always claim he wasn't taking pix of the ppl but of the trees/bldgs/sun/birds/grass/et al and the ppl just happened to be in the pix. kinda like how any of us who have visited popular attractions or attended public events are likely in other ppl's private photos. if we've been in Times Square we are undoubtedly in someone's pix. if we've been to a Beyonce concert we probably ended up in someone's pix and may even be in a YouTube video posted on the Internet.

note: i also represented a guy who took pix of random women at the supermarket where he worked. he was charged w/disorderly conduct - his case was dismissed.

hated it. never felt so used in my life. and it reinforced a lot of what i already knew about cism.

a huge takeaway was that as a model you had no say in shit. which is ultimately the issue with professional photographers taking photos with kids. parents have no say in shit.

Not a child but reminded of this - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/nyregion/in-health-dept-ad-photoshop-not-diabetes-took-leg.html?_r=0

Though I remember another ad with similar circumstances, in which the model was actually irked as fuck but had no legal grounds because they gave up their rights before the first flash.

Once that photog has that image, they can sell it to anyone who can dow whatever the fuck they want with it. And an ad may not be the worst thing, considering the mean shit going on with photo memes these days. Kids don't deserve that.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

i mean if their parents want to avoid the kids' picture being taken w/o their consent and then used for a First Amendment-protected purpose.

i get it. but again there's the law and just having some respect. there's no implication of privacy in a public space, but that doesn't mean people want to be publicized.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

they're Charlie.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and freedom of expression trumps personal feelings about the expression.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

the photog's mistake was in telling the mom about the pix. he should've just kept that to himself. but i understand his impulse to share the info w/her - they'd established a relatively friendly connection. if he was going to reveal that he'd taken the pix he should've couched it w/in the context of the intended use. but generally i think he should've just kept that to himself.

but if i do... psh

mind you i've also walked up to the perv on the street using his camera phone to take candid shots of a womans cleavage. basically just whispered in his ear you should be a fucking shamed of yourself. no big scene. he stopped and said you right.

he was probably covered legally too. and all these motherfuckers that be posting shots of people picking they nose on the train or whatever. fuck them too.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Oh there's no immediate intents to use the shot. But let it come out good. Let a motherfucker get a book deal. And let the pub say that'd make a great cover photo.

You didn't ask me for shit, i didn't give you permission for shit. You gonna track me down to get a model release? You gonna tell the pub not to use that photo? You're happy just having took it right, no need to put it out there?

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

First and foremost let me be very clear.

I don't do this.

I don't take my camera wherever I go, I take my camera where I am hired to be.

I do, however, respect the right of photographers to capture natural life as it happens.

And when you (they) see an interesting moment, you capture it then and deal with the formalities after the fact.

If you make your presence known, you might as well not do it at all, because people get self-conscious or start posing.

It ain't about a book cover, it's about art.

Some of the greatest photos in our history were taken before permission was granted to do anything with them.

The respect of the art and profession of photography has diminished severely over the years due to accessibility and the internet.. So in the prime era of the old man in this story, someone would be more likely to be happy that a professional would want to capture them.

Unfortunately it ain't like that no more.

So I stick to the candids that I'm paid to take.

>Oh there's no immediate intents to use the shot. But let it
>come out good. Let a motherfucker get a book deal. And let
>the pub say that'd make a great cover photo.
>
>You didn't ask me for shit, i didn't give you permission for
>shit. You gonna track me down to get a model release? You
>gonna tell the pub not to use that photo? You're happy just
>having took it right, no need to put it out there?


the publisher for the most part would not use a not model released photo

i think you are correct to be a bit more concerned regarding editorial use
but the ethics of that is pretty much not to offend
you are being a bit over blown about it

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

he would need a model release
even if it was taken in a public space

to show celebs kids or is that not commercial use?

But they may be considered news photos and not commercial. Maybe that's how paparazzi can sell them without consent of the subjects. But I dunno.

i don't know how that doesn't get challenged more often but hey

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

even when that impulse has them behave rudely or unnecessarily.

i see it in lots of actions and stances parents take. it's cute.

my kids cute as fuck. lots of photogs actually ask me, and i'll tell em, thank but no thanks. that cat i see who's supposed to be focused on the concert i'm at but keeps sneaking shots of my kid. i'll walk up to him nicely and ask for his card. then tell him please don't publicize those pictures of my kids and walk away. thankfully that works. if it didn't well then i might get unnecessary.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

lemme leave this post

this subject is way more emotional for some apparently

my stance is clear. you think i'mma just be like yeah you right. FOH!

#parentlife

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

aint nobody asking anyone to agree...

just not to get your panties in a bunch about largely irrelevant BS to the point where i don't even know what the fuck youre talking about

while making the pap out to be beneath you?

FOH!!

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and why dont u instead of me trying to guess what u are implying say it straight out?

i'm not a journalist nor a photographer...just a reasonable human being who think public spaces shouldn't be treated the same as private ones

it's a bit hypocritical to challenge the journalistic rights of pap to take photos of celebs in public spaces but think it's reasonable for non pap to take shots of general pub without permission because they are in public places.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>it's a bit hypocritical to challenge the journalistic rights
>of pap to take photos of celebs in public spaces but think
>it's reasonable for non pap to take shots of general pub
>without permission because they are in public places.
>

i'm not challenging whether or not they have the right...

i think they have the right in public places to do so...

I'm questioning whether or not the fact that celeb A took a shit today is in fact news...I also think that the means in which they use to get these shots should be questioned. For instance photographing a moving vehicle is dangerous (just ask Lady Di)

i think the journalistic right is valid but that what constitutes journalism could be up for grabs...

pap is also pretty well known for bending the rules and using private photos as well

these are the things i question about journalistic rights and the large umbrella of what constitutes journalism


>█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
>Big PEMFin H & z's
>"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1
>thing, a musician." � Miles
>
>"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

just because it's shitty tabloid journalism doesn't mean it isn't still journalism.

they took a picture and sold it to the enquirer, and the enquirer wrote an article about it and put it into a newspaper that gets printed, distributed, and sold.

How is that not journalism? It's not like they're taking a picture of Brad Pitt eating Oreos and then using that photo in a nationwide Oreo campaign. THAT would require consent, because it's a purely commercial purpose.

to question what comprises news isn't something I just made up

not just what is news but also the means the info/data are obtained

>to question what comprises news isn't something I just made
>up
>
>not just what is news but also the means the info/data are
>obtained



letter of the law?
no facts is facts

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

its is what it is
doesn't matter that you dont like the news they cover

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>to show celebs kids or is that not commercial use?


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

public space. arilines can and have forbidden photography on their planes.

and if an airline had a photographer take photos of people on the plane and used that photo of the kid say in their inflight magazine, i think they might have to pay... reasonable expectation of privacy or not.

this is a different case.

i was like 150 posts behind. that's weirdo ish but prob legal.

people are WAY too angry and it sounds like her response was above and beyond. i understand the sensitivities of children being involved, but i feel like we've reached some type of maximum outrage moment in society that gets multiplied by 100 when kids are involved.

personally, i'd probably be annoyed that the photographer took the photos, but best believe i'd hit him up to get my copies, lol.

I thought DHS shut down all that snapping pics @ Airports,Train Stations, etc. after 9/11.

Edit: past the checkpoints I mean, obviously TMZ be takin photos @ the Airport all the time.

If there are no plans to release the photos publicly, he actually did the mom a favor.

Does she have a right to be upset, maybe.

But that's only because she has the right to be protective over her children, not because the photographer legally did anything wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

.

He snapped a picture of a clothed child on public transport.

The world is not going to end for anyone involved in this... but if we keep assuming one another are paedophiles, violent criminals and rapists, we're never going to have a cohesive society. Stop being afraid of everyone, everyone... you could've just had a professional portrait of your beloved child for free if you hadn't been such an untrusting bitch, lady.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

fear of those ^ seems to drive much of push back against what the photog did here.

i agree w/the courts that it's unreasonable to expect privacy in a public setting.

photos can be used as business commerce. the subject has a right to be a part of that decision and outcome.

the family could be under witness protection.

or even the mother is overcompensating and/or very protective, and that's okay too.

children don't have the wherewithal to refuse photos, and so they can't approve either.

the whole shit should've started with the photographer contacting the mother somehow.

I like to get in plain view of the parent, look up from my camera, glance at the child then at the parent, and silently mouth to the parent - 'do you mind?'

It's a judgment call.

You don't know what vantage point he had with the shot.

Was it worth it in the end? Probably not.

But he saw something interesting and went for it.

if he was serious about being able to 'use' them, he would've gotten the appropriate permission to make sure he could do something, first.

he was probably trying to be nice by offering the mom shots of the child, but she might not even need want or desire them.

I'm sure she know the child is cute. Probably got a thousand photos. Camera photos. Professional photos.

Matter fact. The child might have an agent and is not allowed to be photographed by a rogue photographer per the contract.

>if he was serious about being able to 'use' them, he would've
>gotten the appropriate permission to make sure he could do
>something, first.

This is false.

>
>he was probably trying to be nice by offering the mom shots of
>the child, but she might not even need want or desire them.
>

You don't know until you ask, but if you ask first you may miss the natural moment you were trying to capture rendering the entire conversation useless.

>I'm sure she know the child is cute. Probably got a thousand
>photos. Camera photos. Professional photos.
>

Maybe, maybe not. You'd be surprised how many people DON'T know a good photographer.

>Matter fact. The child might have an agent and is not allowed
>to be photographed by a rogue photographer per the contract.

Maybe, maybe not.

he already had the photos.

unless he needed more time and space to observe the child he's done with it.

bringing it up to the mom after the fact is like 'I want to be nice to you'

my biggest questions are

1. why is this dude taking snapshots in a boring ass airport. this is something you do when starting out.

2. we don't know if the old guy is actually a professional (the idea of him botching the situation with the moms leads me to believe he's not used to this)

3. when's the last time you took photos of a damn airplane window with your 'real' camera? Be honest.

>he already had the photos.
>
>unless he needed more time and space to observe the child he's
>done with it.
>
>bringing it up to the mom after the fact is like 'I want to be
>nice to you'

That's the point. He did it as a courtesy, I would think. Not as a requirement.

>
>my biggest questions are
>
>1. why is this dude taking snapshots in a boring ass airport.
>this is something you do when starting out.

Maybe he was...bored?

>
>2. we don't know if the old guy is actually a professional
>(the idea of him botching the situation with the moms leads me
>to believe he's not used to this)
>

Who said he botched anything? The mom may have just overreacted at the very thought of it. People do that.

>3. when's the last time you took photos of a damn airplane
>window with your 'real' camera? Be honest.
>

I don't know where they were in the air at the time. Maybe he saw something interesting. Maybe the clouds, maybe the sunset, maybe mountains. Who knows?? Maybe the 60yr old man had his Canon and not an iPhone to use instead?

"that's not how any of this works" (c) esurance

dog, not all photographers are "on assignment"

it's akin to a sketch artist on the train sketching riders?

does that infringe on the subjects right? no, it doesn't

some photographers are event photographers...some shoot for art

candid photography of art relies on moments

and since their aren't any rights being trampled on...

nobody has of yet to articulate what right people have in public places to not be photographed...not a single soul

either your own your own 'assignment'.

art. street shots etc.

or your on some specific assignment.

either way, you're shooting with intention.

i don't go out and play basketball with the intent of making money...

i do it to enjoy it...and a multitude of other reasons

the intent is art...not a subject

the whole point is to discover a subject...

so should i just YELL out to the crowded street....YOU MAY BE MY SUBJECT IF I DEEM YOU WORTHY!!!!

some photogs are out experimenting...

to see how good their natural eye for lighting, focus, and so forth on the fly

most photogs that do things like that don't wake up in the AM like..."lemme go find some stranger babies to shoot and some emotional parents to anger"

people stay feel entitled to unreasonable consideration

the boundaries of people.

especially if they are shooting random people.

they just have to.

being intrusive (excessive flash or invading personal space) or being obstructive is something worthy of beefing with them about

anything else is just people buying into a form of privacy that doesn't really exist

pretending that all people's feelings are worth consideration makes boundaries unpredictable and erratic...which defeats the purpose of what you're suggesting

that's more creepy than just taking the pix w/o permission, IMO.

LOL

and i believe if the photos are to be used for a purely commercial purpose the subject's consent would be required first. so while the photog could capture the photo for a commercial purpose w/o consent he would need to get a release signed before the pic could be used commercially.

considering how many cameras captured that child's image in that airport setting w/o the mom's awareness or permission, it's kinda unreasonable for her to trip about an amateur or professional photog capturing the girl's image in that very public setting. it's life. it might make mom a bit sketched out but she needs to get over herself, IMO.

If you show it to them after the fact, they're more likely to say "awww! can you send it to me?" and you may have yourself a new client.

the same flight.

We're not talking about a random person walking by you on the street.

They were at the same gate waiting to board the same plane, for God knows how long.

Therefore it's more of a common space than a random city street on your way to Duane Reade or some shit.

because it's less of a 'random factor'.

in reality, the 'random' factor works in favor of the photographer.

i'd see this as being less of a big deal if they were at a random street corner.

at an airport the mother/subject doesn't realy have anywhere to flee.

she may feel trapped by that.

Boo.

and (im assuming in this case) an slr?

it's okay if you are. i just want to know so we can stop there.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and people regularly post such photos of their surroundings on social media?

If so, yes, please stop. You're being just as irrational as the mother.

It isn't about fidelity, it's about risk.

And here you have a man who was forthcoming in saying "hey, as a professional, here's my card. I snapped a photo of your child".

you know resolution is bullshit.

it's all about the size of that sensor.

and true focal lengths.

quit playing around.

The point is you're arguing a false sense of "safety".

The danger isn't a "professional" photographer that hands you his card after taking a photo.

It's irrational to blow up about that because the true risk of exploitation is all around you in the form of people with smartphones, facebook and instagram.

especially to the general public/ the person that it's pointed at.

yes, that response is irrational - but its honest.

photographers should be aware of how cameras make subjects feel. especially the ones that haven't agreed to being 'shot'.

Which means he was respectful to their physical space at the time the moment occurred.

He just captured it and offered to share it with her.

you weren't looking. don't worry it's not perverted, the wind just blew your dress in time.'

i think they came out great. here's my card, i'll send them to you.

shot of one specific subject.

the photographer is not a robotic arm capturing random movement.

he's a person and has more responsibility.

at the airport got all types of shots of the child already'

my position is that it's not the same thing.

got it

so in a court context, mom's complaint about the photog's act (taking her kid's permission in an airport terminal w/o consent) has no legs.

of course mom seems to think the photog taking the kid's pic w/o consent is more creepy than the dozens of security cameras that also captured the kid's image in that setting (though mom doesn't know where the cameras are or whether the cameras capture still or video images or where the video feed(s) go or who if anyone is watching them or whether the feed is recorded and what if anything is done w/any potential recording of her kid's image). too bad for mom - in that if she took her complaint to the police and all that jazz it wouldn't amount to much.

generally, mom needs to get over herself here. i understand why she's bothered though.

>photos can be used as business commerce. the subject has a
>right to be a part of that decision and outcome.


be used for commercial use

your concern is editorial use
its unlikely he would use it that way
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

i'm not long on patience


i'll say this once
you dont know what the fuck you're talking about
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

theres plenty of room dude
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

i'm just helping you navigate

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I better check to see if I'm in any!

*goes to shutterstock*
*clicks search*
"fat jew with beard"
...........
.......
....
OH SHIT!!!!!

did we have a similar pedeo consensus here?


its disturbing me a bit the reaction people had
but i dont have a child
but i worry about putting men in such an odd place when it comes to children

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

as someone who has taken random pics of folks im not mad at the photog
as a mother im not mad at the mom either

nobody expects parents to be reasonable lol

i'd say i was happy to have his contact information
i'd be grateful if he would not put an image of my child on social media nor his website without my permission and i'll be keeping track of him
thanks!
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

in hopes one isn't of your child?

>in hopes one isn't of your child?

it okay
easy mistake
i'm not the one who would be hoping he doesn't do it in this case though
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

of nothing.

matter fact, i don't even know what 'this' is.

i know you're short on patience (and clarity).

i didn't mean to waste our time.

talking about
is what it means

you dont know what my reach is
what i know
what i'm willing to do
but when i say looking at yet another photographers site more than once?
is no skin off my back
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Then he give the parents his cards.


.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

and an airplane cabin?

but haven't figured out if it's in any way significant to the convo

there is usually a disclaimer at the arena and on the ticket telling you that by attending the game/walking into the arena that you may be photographed/video tapped.

And there is an expectation that you may show up on the kiss cam or dance cam or even on TV as it is a filmed event.

At an airport, there's an expectation that you may unwittingly photobomb someone, or that you will be on CCTV. But there's no expectation that a professional photographer will take candid pictures of your 3 year old.

I took a photography class in college and we had a full class discussion about the ethics of candid photos. I feel like when you take them, you should tell someone immediately after you do, let them see them and delete them if they ask. It's not cool to just photograph someone in an "official" capacity without asking for permission to use their image.

I feel like
>when you take them, you should tell someone immediately after
>you do, let them see them and delete them if they ask.

^ the photog did this, basically, and mom flipped on him for it.

the question posed is is either one of them wrong?

the mom was informed at the end of the flight.

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

with all that camera.

photography is not like painting.

these are instant shots of time and space.

and then there's the technical aspect of a camera.

photogs shoot a lot, yes, when they're inspired.

but also, just to learn how to use the camera.

it takes time and plenty of 'aimless' shots.

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

And ideally you would let the person no IMMEDIATELY after it was done.

But in this scenario, it depends on timing in relation to the flight being boarded.

There may not have been the opportunity right away, so he waited.

Also, I believe he approached the conversation slightly wrong.

He should have gotten straight to the point instead of leading off with how cute she was.

I understand what he was trying to do but it wasn't effective.

what difference is made where homie waited an hour or a few hrs to inform mom about the candid pix he took of her kid in a public setting where he gave mom his contact info assumedly so that she could review the pix in case she wanted to order prints and/or to ask him to delete the pix as per the ethical training VE mentioned?

and him informing the mother.

He took the picture while they were waiting for the plane at the airport of departure but didn't tell her until the end of the flight. That's not immediate. Immediate would have been him walking up to her right after taking the pictures and saying "I'm a photographer and I just couldn't help myself from taking pictures of your beautiful daughter. Do you want to take a look at them? I'm more than happy to send them to you or if you're not comfortable with me having them, I'll delete them right now." That's immediate.

And it also seems like he did it as a sales-pitch... like, "I took pictures of your kid. Do you want them? Call me for them." It didn't seem genuine but damn near like extortion to me.

why do you think it makes any difference in this situation?

the mom could easily assumed the guy had no REAL plans of telling her he'd gotten the shots. or else he would've had that conversation immediately.

i'm not sure how they're conversation went down.

but he then slid the whole 'reminds me of my grandchild'

the photog might've been drooling/pee stains (who fucking knows) or gave some sort of visual cue to the mother during the flight that made it uneasy.

he mentioned it all at the end of the flight like it wasn't important to him, or even a serious plan.

i see that.

i still think he shouldn't have mentioned the pix.

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

someone should call the police on him.

As for high school games, if you're talking about someone taking pictures of the action on the court, that is totally normal. As is taking pictures in the stands (for yearbook purposes).

i recently represented a guy who was accused of taking pix of school children as they walked on a public sidewalk. he was charged w/disorderly conduct. the case was dismissed after i'd filed a motion to dismiss. it didn't even get to a hearing - the state's attorney dismissed after reading my motion.

good for him.

my pretty obvious point is that calling the police on a guy taking pix of kids in a public park won't necessarily result in much court action against him. the cops might stop him from taking the pix and maybe even arrest him - and if that's the goal then it's all good. but if a criminal charge is filed based on him taking the pix it's unlikely to w/stand a motion to dismiss.

it might even be moral vs ethics, to me.

yes, taking pictures of peoples childrens may not land you in jail per se.

but that's not really the conversation about 'right and wrong'

the conversation about right and wrong:

it's right to respect peoples boundaries.
it's wrong to intimidate a mother by taking photos of her child, even if the consequence is negligent.

i think the photog was w/in his rights to take that girl's pix in that setting. i think he made a mistake in informing the girl's mother that he'd taken the pix. he should've kept that to himself considering she didn't know and wouldn't have otherwise known he took the pix.

mom freaked a bit and that freak out is understandable. i think it's unreasonable though given the circumstance.

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

My boy is some random 6'5" Black dude taking ransom pictures of kids at a sporting event without the consent of the parks and parents. Then he approaches the parents, tell them how good their kid looks and hands them his card telling them where they can see the requested/ non consent pictures to view and order, yet you thinks things are different.

Please tell us how things are different?


.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

i mean it IS a public place or nah?

jurors have had their photos taken during trial and were later located and intimated by representatives of one of the parties to the case they're deciding or some other entity w/interest in the trial. witnesses have also been photographed and intimidated in an effort to improperly influence their testimony (aka witness tampering). to avoid this ppl have been banned from taking pix in court.

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

that might be the only difference
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

So I don't think it matters.


.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

has he successfully imparted himself in this environment as non-threatening? hopefully.

has he taken into consideration the idea that every parent may not want strangers taking photos of their child? hopefully

is he making use of the fun-loving environment that is a sport event? he is.

do you know that he has never gotten any bad feedback? tough call.

>has he successfully imparted himself in this environment as
>non-threatening? hopefully.
>


What, you think he applied for a t-shirt. Nope. He just started taking pics. Plus the in the OP the photographer was not threatening either.


>has he taken into consideration the idea that every parent may
>not want strangers taking photos of their child? hopefully
>

Man you are drifting away from the center of the topic that kicked the discussion off.


>is he making use of the fun-loving environment that is a sport
>event? he is.
>


What does fun have to do with the topic?



>do you know that he has never gotten any bad feedback? tough
>call.


Nope. It's all been good.



.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

the law'.

the idea that law is rung up into this is kind of gross.

you people love your laws.

your laws have never loved you.

why stand so hard with them?

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

anxiety.

especially a photographer shooting aimlessly.

a ton of people think that people should do unreasonable things to assuage the unreasonable expectations of others

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12695440&mesg_id=12695440&page=#12696167

... especially their children.

he's/she's the one doing the shooting and has the responsibility

not unlike a police officer.

I'm asking. It's not like he stole the child's soul with the picture.

.
.
.
"America, stop turning our Court Houses of Justice into Dens for Justified Murderers."

it'l surely make them happy and it's not like you're stealing the child soul.

I can say this because one of my parents is one
they only care about a good shot, not your personal space or preference towards being photographed

it's intrusive and rude. I wouldn't suspect a person taking my kid's picture of pedophilia but I still wouldn't be cool with it either

everything isn't an object to be captured, people are just trying to exist

its mostly usually harmless
but understandably disconcerting and annoying for the subject
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

In public spaces, her kid is photographed by CCTV everyday...allday, and is likely somewhere in the background, of at least a couple of those, 288,000,000 daily photo uploads to Facebook.
Does she lose control of her emotions over that?
I wonder if her in-flight reading material was something like People Magazine.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1412743

but it's well within their rights. I don't think I'd flip out, but if I saw someone doing it, I might politely ask them to stop. If they refused, I'd remove my child from the situation instead of becoming belligerent.

if he wanted to approach her about the pics, he should've just started with saying he's a professional photographer, that he was taking pics in the airport and there are some that have her child in them, etc. here's my card

rather than approaching her about the kid, implying that he's been observing the woman and her child the entire flight, since the airport, and then bring it up

i'd imagine that's where that convo went left.

or she might just be an angry woman
or have one of those kids that every random person seems to want to take a pic of
i had one of those kids and it's a bit unnerving
i just routinely said no to anyone asking permission and asked people to stop taking pics whenever i noticed

i don't think i ever kirked out on anyone but can imagine wrong moment, wrong time, wrong person and that might've happened... especially since there were often racial/racist motivations in our case

n/m

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

He didn't do anything illegal but his whole approach was bad. The mom has every right to be upset.

Just a regular, candid picture. Nothing malicious or suggestive.
But like if your kid is swinging on the swing set and a random guy snaps a shot of that. What's the issue?

I'm childless, so I might be missing that protective instinct or something.