• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

faceless

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,198
it's almost like a bunch of people want to just gloss over the fact that she only confronted him because he was Black so obviously he couldn't have any kids there, unlike all of the other (white) people taking pictures.

but you know what, i agree with her, white women should never feel uncomfortable. /s
 

ty_hot

Banned
Dec 14, 2017
7,176
What a change in the direction of the thread. It is quite obvious it all happened because he is black, but the discussion here shifted to something else... she came with an attitude, he destroyed any argument she could have with "it is legal" and "do you want to see my id" (this part is obviously only "necessary" because he is black). She then threatens to expose him as a sexual abuser (obviously used other words) to millions of people. He was calm all the time and then after the threat he naturally reacts trying to hide himself from the camera but apparently she was scared of a black man in the vicinity of her cellphone and she stopped the recording right there, so we dont know whatever else he said to her.

Now about the creepiness of taking photos of strangers: apparently for the majority here you are not supposed to take photos of strangers' kids, But it is totally fine if your kids are there playing. Im assuming the bad part of that is the fear of some perv taking photos of your kids, but reality shows that sex abusers are usually the ones close to the kid - an uncle, a friend, a neighbor - so it is a bit counterintuitive to think that a random person taking a photo is creepy but if it is someone you know it is fine. Or are people only supposed to take photos where their kids are? I wonder if you would be policing the people you know to make sure they dont take photos where their kids arent present because that would also move to the "creepy" territory.

Also, based on the size of those beautiful lenses he could probably be standing dozens of meters away and taking photos but he preferred to be nearby taking photos, so I guess he didnt hide his intentions. And he talked to her clearly, didnt pretend he knew someone there, or that he wasnt taking pics. The guy is 100% in the right.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
its on you to protect your personal information, not everyone else.

again, unless you're some kind of a hermit your "likeness" is already out there whether in public record or just being picked up on cameras everywhere if someone wants to look you up.

You're basically telling people to either wear a mask or never leave their house. At least with Google and Facebook I can sort of choose if my data is taken. Can't do that with some random person with a camera apparently. Even if it's my kid who can't even legally have an account from those two companies because they can't consent to data collection under COPPA.

My photo being part of a driver's license or passport isn't for the profit of an individual or corporation, it's there for safety reasons. Same with most security cameras. That isn't the case with a photographer uploading a photo of me without permission.
 

SupremeWu

Banned
Dec 19, 2017
2,856
User Banned (2 Weeks): Dismissive Commentary Around Racism
Any man taking photos of other peoples kids without permission is going to have people freak out, if being called a creep is all that happens you're lucky.

You don't do that.

Sir this is hardly the time for rational thought. A wink-wink just got mad at a nudge-nudge, all context is meaningless.
 

SilentPanda

Member
Nov 6, 2017
13,621
Earth
I never said I wanted that. I specifically mentioned legal reasons as an exception, which filming police
You're basically telling people to either wear a mask or never leave their house. At least with Google and Facebook I can sort of choose if my data is taken. Can't do that with some random person with a camera apparently. Even if it's my kid who can't even legally have an account from those two companies because they can't consent to data collection under COPPA.

My photo being part of a driver's license or passport isn't for the profit of an individual or corporation, it's there for safety reasons. Same with most security cameras. That isn't the case with a photographer uploading a photo of me without permission.

Public place is public and with the spread of flu and covid-19 just wear a mask.
And its not about you, majoeity of people including the photographer dont care aboit you.
 

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
Are you talking about the first amendment? I am talking about hobbyists and businesses. Not the press. I also never said I was in favor of banning police officers or public figures being filmed. I'm talking about private citizens and children.

Yes. I thought that was pretty clear. 1A doesn't distinguish between people and press in public. The right to take a photo in public is just as fundamental as any other right granted by the BoR.

I never said I wanted that. I specifically mentioned legal reasons as an exception, which filming police officers and other public figures would be.

Some random hobbyist or pro photographer shouldn't be able to take my likeness and put my personal information out there without my consent. Especially if it helps them monetarily.

Except they can take your photo if you are in public. Case law around 1A is stupidly clear about this. Other countries have different laws, but you are talking about changing a fundamental right of US citizens. Overturning Roe v Wade would be easier.

I deleted as when I read about it last week I didn't read about the enhanced tracking. I was too slow on the delete.

I'm still skeptical he just happened to be practicing on a celebrity and or her kid. Probably not the first time he's used that line at a event involving a celebrity. I of course could be wrong.

Regardless of who it is I would stop and delete pics if asked if I was doing as hobby.

1) If you're in LA celebs are everywhere.
2) Most people don't recognize celebs without makeup.
3) Even more people don't recognize an adult who was best known as a child star.
 

Bonafide

Member
Oct 11, 2018
936
You're basically telling people to either wear a mask or never leave their house. At least with Google and Facebook I can sort of choose if my data is taken. Can't do that with some random person with a camera apparently. Even if it's my kid who can't even legally have an account from those two companies because they can't consent to data collection under COPPA.

My photo being part of a driver's license or passport isn't for the profit of an individual or corporation, it's there for safety reasons. Same with most security cameras. That isn't the case with a photographer uploading a photo of me without permission.

i understand what you saying, but im saying all of that is irrelevant.

there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces, period. and there should never be.
 

FrakEarth

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,273
Liverpool, UK
I can understand wanting to practice sports photography, as there is a trick or two to doing it well - and to play devils advocate, kids play more amateur sport than adults, and you need a press pass to take photos at a lot of pro adult venues. That said, I wouldn't randomly rock up at any playing field and start snapping photos of other peoples kids - not in a million years. Its one of those things these days where people are understandably wary and sensitive. I think she's overreacted here, but I'm also not surprised.. and fwiw, I do agree the question of whether she would have accosted a different photographer is valid. She doesn't seem like a very nice person.

In my last job I was asked to take some photos at a kids community triathlon event that our company (a charity) was running and sponsoring, I had all the official event gear on, a pass identifying me as one of the photographers - and I still got queries from a couple of people - who in fairness were happy enough when they realised I was with the company. But I remember being a bit angry at my boss for putting me in that position and felt like it should have been communicated better to participants and parents where we would be stationed etc. I got some great photos though.. little determined faces on the bikes, their elation and pride running across the finish line, stuff like that. An adult event of the same ilk would still have yielded good shots I'm sure, but for kids everything is new, every achievement is that much bigger to them.
 

Psamtik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,841
I deliver enough local papers to know that there are photographers at children's sporting events. Doesn't seem strange at all, especially with a professional camera. It's not as if he was sneaking shots on his phone.
 

subpar spatula

Refuses to Wash his Ass
Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,080
i understand what you saying, but im saying all of that is irrelevant.

there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces, period. and there should never be.
In BC, Canada there is. You should absolutely want your government to give some form of privacy law. It's weird knowing you can be photographed just because you're in public and on purpose and those photos can be sold especially if you're famous.
 

Miracle Ache

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,205
Taking pictures of kids without their parent's consent is 100% creepy and his initial response being "It's legal" is suspicious as all hell.
 

hodayathink

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,050
I deliver enough local papers to know that there are photographers at children's sporting events. Doesn't seem strange at all, especially with a professional camera. It's not as if he was sneaking shots on his phone.

Someone taking pictures for a local paper would have credentials when asked, or at the very least would say they're doing it for the local paper. They wouldn't just say "It's not illegal" if one of the parents asked why they were taking pictures.
 

cartographer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,004
Her motives are obvious and rightfully make her look terrible. I completely empathize with her being wary of pictures due to her celebrity and likely experiences with paparazzi. That doesn't justify the way she approached him. It's telling.

His motives seem fine and believable. I can understand people finding it weird, but that doesn't mean he's in the wrong. He picked up on her motives immediately and responded appropriately. I'll defer to his experience on dealing with situations like that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,714
In BC, Canada there is. You should absolutely want your government to give some form of privacy law. It's weird knowing you can be photographed just because you're in public and on purpose and those photos can be sold especially if you're famous.

I am fairly certain the laws in Canada are not really any different than the US. Anyone can photograph anyone in public.

The only Western country I know of that gives any rights to the person photographed is Germany, which allows a person to ask their photo to be deleted.
 

Bonafide

Member
Oct 11, 2018
936
Her motives are obvious and rightfully make her look terrible. I completely empathize with her being wary of pictures due to her celebrity and likely experiences with paparazzi. That doesn't justify the way she approached him. It's telling.

His motives seem fine and believable. I can understand people finding it weird, but that doesn't mean he's in the wrong. He picked up on her motives immediately and responded appropriately. I'll defer to his experience on dealing with situations like that.

yeah, a whole lot of folks not just in this topic but in general still drinking the kool aid about "stranger danger"

the racial angle of this has fallen to the wayside i think
 

subpar spatula

Refuses to Wash his Ass
Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,080
I am fairly certain the laws in Canada are not really any different than the US. Anyone can photograph anyone in public.

The only Western country I know of that gives any rights to the person photographed is Germany, which allows a person to ask their photo to be deleted.
In BC, Canada it's different. It's why paparazzi never actually made a really big foothold here even though a lot of films are shoot here causing celebs to be here year round.

 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,831
Netherlands
Taking pictures of kids without consent would probably be illegal in all of Europe under GDPR.

Would also consider it creepy. I think she way overreacted by calling him out to his 15 million followers, but can also kind of see that she's extra paranoid for stalking by paparazzi.

If the news item was father of kid punches unknown person taking pictures of his children, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
 

deimosmasque

Ugly, Queer, Gender-Fluid, Drive-In Mutant, yes?
Moderator
Apr 22, 2018
14,159
Tampa, Fl
I think maybe in the past it made sense, but with all the data that's tied to a single JPEG such as location data coupled with the rise of facial recognition I think that's another story. Your data ends up being out there and used without your consent because some photographer wanted to expand their portfolio or even just have some fun.

Even if the photographer is using a personal blog and not something like Instagram you still have companies that comb through Google Images for facial recognition data and build tools that further threaten people's privacy.

A hobbyist photographer even under the most noble intentions becomes another cog in surveillance capitalism. If taking pictures in public without their permission is legal then those laws should definitely be updated.
If your are a real photographer, who respects there subjects, you already have that Metadata turned off.

If you don't, truth is that you don't care. Neither does the dozens of people take pictures at the same event. So what is the real difference?

Best practice for photographers is to get a model release for any identifiable person in a photo they're going to use commercially. There may be hard requirements if you're at a private event (like a ticketed event,) but no stock photo house or advertising firm is going to touch a photo with a kid without a release. For example, here's what's on the first page of iStock/Getty's page about selling photos on their site:

And like I said you can talk to the athletic commission that set up the event. They will usually get you the required permissions. Those permission slips that parents sign, usually include that specific kind of thing.

A true photographer should always have release forms on their person just in case, but if you are shooting an event then you can usually contact those who set up the event and get release for the public area.
 

yurr

Alt-Account
Banned
Nov 20, 2019
946
Paparazzi while black.

Yes I took it there, unless we have proof of her doing it to others it will stay there

*shrug*
 

Lord Error

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,358
To photographers in this thread who do this kind of stuff: please be mindful of the fact that we live in an age where all it takes is a photo of you for someone to find exactly who you are. There are services that can do this. Of course people are going to feel more violated than ever when the photos of them or their kids are being taken without any consent. Don't justify it solely with the "well, it's legal" premise. A lot of really immoral things are legal, and while this isn't anything close to worst of them, you are almost for sure making people uncomfortable.
 

Fugu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,729
Taking photographs of people in public without their permission is legal because of the troubling implications for the law that would come about if it wasn't and not for any moral or even rights-based reason. Accordingly, "it's legal" is no more adequate a response to "please stop photographing my children" as it is to any other request to stop doing something morally dubious but technically permissible.

Leveraging your fame to try to get people to do what you want is also both morally dubious and legal. Similarly, Hillary Duff responding to the accusation that this was an inappropriate misplay with "it's legal so" would be exactly as inadequate.

As an aside, I find the entitlement of street photographers to be quite bizarre. As others in this thread have mentioned, I've seen some seriously culturally insensitive behavior come about as a result of this entitlement and I just don't understand it. Is this an aspect of the culture of the hobby?
 

subpar spatula

Refuses to Wash his Ass
Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,080
Taking photographs of people in public without their permission is legal because of the troubling implications for the law that would come about if it wasn't and not for any moral or even rights-based reason. Accordingly, "it's legal" is no more adequate a response to "please stop photographing my children" as it is to any other request to stop doing something morally dubious but technically permissible.
Other places handle it just fine.
 

Fugu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,729
Other places handle it just fine.
I don't know of a single common law jurisdiction in which it's illegal to photograph someone in public without their permission.

This really isn't my area of the law so I'm not saying they don't exist, I just don't know of one. I don't see how it could happen without either radically reinventing how property is conceived and/or running into problems with broadly-defined rights of expression/speech. These issues are probably not as relevant for non-CL jurisdictions since their rationale will not be the same.
 

Lugia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
479
Yeah I agree, definitely creepy to be taking pictures of kids like this without the parents consent. But it was completely unnecessary that she recorded him, and posted the video to her millions of followers. You could have just told him to go away with the other parents privately.
 

regenhuber

Member
Nov 4, 2017
5,201
User Banned (2 weeks): Dismissive commentary around racism
Yeah I agree, definitely creepy to be filming kids like this. But it was completely unnecessary that she recorded him, and posted the video to her millions of followers. You could have just tell him to go away with the other parents privately.

This sums up my feelings.

The photographer should have
a) explained his situation to one of the parents and asked for permission out of common courtesy
b) maybe picked a practive session for grown men
Dude might be legally entitled to take pics but it's still creepy as fuck.

Hillary Duff still acted like an asshole.
She could have had that conversation in private, putting that man's face on the internet was uncalled for.

At the end of the day, I believe the guy that he doesn't mean any harm. Highly doubt there is an illegal deepweb marketplace for kids at soccer practice.

Also, his race made it obvious he didn't have a kid on the field. He would have been left alone if he was a white dude.

It's a reasonable speculation but I personally don't think it's true (we'll never know anyways).
All I know is that youth soccer rosters (especially 7yr old squads that don't play 11 vs 11) only have a handful of players and parents know each other from taking kids from/to practice and the games.
Even if a parent attends a game/practice for the very first time, it would be super unusual not to introduce yourself and stand where all the other parents/coaches are standing.
In this case (IMO) an unknown white/asian/hispanic man, that acted like this would have been confronted just as quickly.
 
Last edited:

ferunnico

Member
Oct 29, 2017
133
The argument that you somehow lose your right to privacy as soon as you step outside is so weird to me.

What does the "it's technically legal" crowd think about the fact that it's not actually legal or at best very much a grey area in many countries around the world?
 

Cokie Bear

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,944
User Banned (2 weeks): Dismissive commentary around racism
I don't think this is the race issue people are making it out to be. As a white dad I've had people ask me who I'm with while sitting on a bench in the park when my kids are off playing. Some people have this idea that any single dad sitting in a park is a pervert, regardless of race.
 

Emergency & I

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,634
User Banned (3 Months): Inflammatory false equivalence surrounding race. Prior severe ban for dismissive and antagonistic behavior in a sensitive discussion.
Lots of 'technically legal' responses. We are truly in the age of Trump.
 

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
The argument that you somehow lose your right to privacy as soon as you step outside is so weird to me.

What does the "it's technically legal" crowd think about the fact that it's not actually legal or at best very much a grey area in many countries around the world?

It's not "technically legal". It's a constitutional right in the US. I suppose it's not much different than birthright citizenship in that regard. The vast majority of countries around the world do not have birthright citizenship. The US has it as a part of the Constitution.

I very much respect the laws of other countries when travelling (when in Rome and all that), but at home, no one should ever be asked to forfeit a right guaranteed by the constitution by another random person.
 

Ashhong

Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,591
User Banned (3 days): Inappropriate commentary
Wait was this guy paparazzi following her? Was he actually shooting the kids? Or across the field at her?

also I wonder what she thought of the infamous engagement blowjob pics
 

Monkey D.

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
2,352
Taking pictures of kids without consent would probably be illegal in all of Europe under GDPR.

Would also consider it creepy. I think she way overreacted by calling him out to his 15 million followers, but can also kind of see that she's extra paranoid for stalking by paparazzi.

If the news item was father of kid punches unknown person taking pictures of his children, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.


It is illegal in Germany to take pictures of people not just kids in public and posting them online without consent if iam not wrong.

The privacy laws in germany are very good. Google maps is not allowed to use street view
 

sirap

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,209
South East Asia
As ironic as it is, citing the law is the only protection us colored photographers have when confronted in public like this. Now whether or not racism was involved in this particular situation is up to your own interpretation, but there's no denying that Duff pulled a classic Karen move (supercharged with her celebrity status).

Is he a creep? I don't think so, but I understand why parents would think that way. What I do know is that she handled this in the worse possible way.
 

ferunnico

Member
Oct 29, 2017
133
It's not "technically legal". It's a constitutional right in the US. I suppose it's not much different than birthright citizenship in that regard. The vast majority of countries around the world do not have birthright citizenship. The US has it as a part of the Constitution.

I very much respect the laws of other countries when travelling (when in Rome and all that), but at home, no one should ever be asked to forfeit a right guaranteed by the constitution by another random person.

When the first amendment was adopted, people didn't have machines in their pockets that allow them to take geolocationally tagged high definiton pictures anytime and anywhere and share them with thousands or even millions of people with the press of a button.
 

svacina

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,439
When the first amendment was adopted, people didn't have machines in their pockets that allow them to take geolocationally tagged high definiton pictures anytime and anywhere and share them with thousands or even millions of people with the press of a button.
If only there was case law.

Oh wait.
 

Catshade

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,198
User Banned (2 weeks): Dismissive commentary around racism, concern trolling
I wish the photographer also brought a gun, just to see how the 'It's legal! It's in the constitution!' people here react.
 

Paquete_PT

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,316
I usually avoid taking pictures of kids, it's too intrusive and doesn't feel right. And I think it's fair if parents don't like it.
 

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
Fair enough.

But I still take issue with the argument that something is automatically right or moral just because it is legal, especially if people only refer to the constitution.
I wish the photographer also brought a gun, just to see how the 'It's legal! It's in the constitution!' people here react.

You must hate the ACLU.

www.aclu.org

Photographers' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
 

Glasfrut

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
3,534
As ironic as it is, citing the law is the only protection us colored photographers have when confronted in public like this.

I don't get why people don't see this.

Anything else (any escalation) and it's a story about a black man "attacking" a blonde white woman. A "famous" one too.
 

alstrike

Banned
Aug 27, 2018
2,151
I wish the photographer also brought a gun, just to see how the 'It's legal! It's in the constitution!' people here react.

What a moronic post...

If the kid was playing in a proper tournament in a stadium and photographers were taking photos, would she react the same way?

By the way, how's Hillary fucking Duff still a thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.