-
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.
Ok ERA where do you fall on the rights of Photographers? Hillary Duff calls Photographer creep for shooting Childs soccer game.
- Thread starter TheGhost
- Start date
- Status
Do we honestly know that she would have uploaded the video had he said he was working with a parent or if he said sorry I am just practicing and walked away? Had she done that I would agree with calling Duff out, but that is not what happened.
How would he know this though? How can he be threatened without knowing that was what she's doing? He doesn't until she says it at the end. So he still did this before knowing he was being threatened with being put upon IG but still ignored multiple requests to stop. So I ask again, how many times does she need to ask before he's being unreasonable?
To be honest with people, you never know. I honestly have dealt with this same exact thing enough to the point where people harassing you over this exact thing honestly has me more at risk than the person that I am photographing.
Duff only seemed to come at the guy because of her celebrity kids being there. We honestly have no idea how long he's been there and I'm quite sure the other parents know that he's there since he's in full view. Only Duff cares.
She'll still call the police to do something about it, like she already did.
Didn't she call the police after he wouldn't leave? You're saying she called the police before she even went up to him?
This is all just conjecture. How do you know no one cares? Maybe Duff realized first or talked with other parents and went from there. Like really there is some much conjecture to throw Duff under the bus. What we have is a video of a photographer arguing over the right to take photos of children without a parents consent. That is what we know.
Yes, white people calling police on black people for doing perfectly legal or mundane activity like taking a picture has only one purpose of the police to do something about it that usually mean wanting the police officer to either arrest the black man or shoot him with a gun.
When he is not a threat or doing anything illegal.
And the US police can't be trusted, similiar to a black student taking a selfie getting police officer surounding and throwing him to the ground and pointing a gun at him from their police car passing by and not offering a explanation still(They are suppsoedly reponding to a scary black man with a gun, but no such call or record exist)
Traveling teen mistakenly taken down by local police. ACLU has filed a lawsuit
Stepping off a bus at an East Moline rest stop, the out-of-town college student had no idea what was about to hit him.
Jaylan Butler, Black Without Pretext
In the scheme of stories about cops and a black guy, they’re often muddled by some conflicting facts, or at least colorable allegations, that blunt the fact that the primary cause of the cops…
blog.simplejustice.us
Because it would've been more people than just Duff confronting the guy. I get iffy with the whole photographing kids as well, but sports is at least interesting. Now if the guy was photographing kids on a public playground then that would be cause for concern. We don't even know how often the guy goes there. Now if he's been there for say an hour, he probably should've asked or at least announce him being there and see how much push back he'd get. 10-15 minutes...eh...seems like a different story. I photograph in parks, I shouldn't exactly have to full on leave an entire park just because some mother doesn't want me to photograph their kids. Granted with this crap I'm usually walking around and not perched on the sidelines and have already deleted said pic before this thing has already happened.
OP
OP
As a photographer I think she was unreasonable just telling him to do anything.
Anyone asking you to not photograph their kid is being unreasonable?
User Banned (2 Weeks): Hostility towards other members, a history of similar infractions
Hes too thick in the head to understand this. Why even bother?
I would prefer to be asked civilly, but I also understand that parents have a right to be protective of their children, so I'd getting the message that they don't want their kids photographed regardless if they're civil or not.
Take this thread as a lesson. Taking photos of people and/or children without consent bothers others. You might want to rethink how you approach your craft.
OP
OP
Tell that to the millions of photographers that don't let the Hillary Duff's of the world boss them around.
Most people aren't photographers.
I'm an artist too, mate, I wouldn't be doing a life drawing of someone if I saw it made them uncomfortable or asked me to stop. I can also appreciate that a parent would be overly-protective of their children, regardless if the situation (i.e. "for the craft" in this case) calls for it or not.
Heck even when I'm photographing a place as a tourist I'll still see people cowering away from my lens while I shoot a building –– some folks just don't like having their photo taken my strangers. The goods news is not all people care, and "models" are often easy to find if you tell them the situation.
OP
OP
We had people in here yesterday saying shit that would make street photography non existent
It's a century old craft. If Marlon Brando at the height of his Hollywood power couldn't get away with punching a member of the paparazzi then Duff ain't "fixing" it. I don't care if a photographer photographs my kid, I would honestly be more disturbed if some random stranger came from out of the blue and started talking to them.
But they're nobodies.
You as a photographer are out there capturing a lot of human moments, and you should realize, not everyone is comfortable having their kids photographed. If they ask you not to, just don't. Yea, some people can be dicks about it, but just step off. Sometimes you miss good shots, and you never the chance again, but that's just how it is when you're street photographer. Cities always on the move.
First of all, you alluded to the fact you don't have kids earlier. Second, you still don't seem to realize that photographing people and kids without consent bothers others and instead of looking to your own habits on what this means to your craft, you say it doesn't really matter. You are free to photograph kids, but you now know what you are doing is bothersome and someone is going to come up to you and may not show you any pleasantries.
If millions of people think taking photos of children without parental consent is a great thing to do, then your craft is fucked and deserving of ire.
I don't feel comfortable putting many (or any at all) pictures of my daughter on Facebook as she's 8, she doesn't have her own account and isn't making that decision on her own. It's for similar reasons that I wouldn't be cool with some random person using her in an online portfolio or their Instagram account. It has nothing to do with fears of pedophilia. I'd hope that if I were in the situation that I had to ask them not to they'd be cool enough to respect my wishes.
For starters I don't see the harm in it. I don't see a person photographing another person or kid for that matter as something harmful. I see people photographing other people without consent all the time. If they get bothered fine they have the right to do so and decline and ask for the image to be deleted which I will respect that. You for some odd reason seem to have the blinders on and leap to obscene conclusions about my thought space and make obscene assumptions about a craft that you honestly have no understanding of. I draw the line at acts of violence. Once that happens it becomes very clear who is actually in the wrong, because there's a very good chance the photographer was the one doing their best to de-escalate the situation and keep it from happening. Street photography is basically a textbook moral grey area where it's very easy for both parties to over step their boundaries on a case by case basis.
People in this thread are telling you yet you don't care. How can you not see how you are acting? We are telling you that photographing kids without parental consent is bothersome to us yet you continue to say you see nothing wrong with it. Me and my kids don't need to accommodate your hobby. If you continue to think that a parent shouldn't care about this, then you obviously don't care and you continue going about photographing kids. Just don't act shocked when someone approaches you and may say a bad word or two in your direction.
I would not be ok with it, if any photographer was trying to practice their craft why would it be kids they practice on? You can't tell me theres not a less problematic option for photographers to learn from, why not go to an adult minor league game or even a college game if this guy really wanted to take pics at a sports game.
Also fuck the paparazzi, I think it's a terrible practice and only feeds into people's sometimes VERY unhealthy relationships with celebrities.
Also fuck the paparazzi, I think it's a terrible practice and only feeds into people's sometimes VERY unhealthy relationships with celebrities.
And I don't just photograph kids. I'm not going to stop taking my landscape pic for example just because your kids happen to be somewhere around the edge of my frame. My life doesn't have to stop and start just because someone has kids. As I said you're just straight up conclusion jumping and for some odd reason you keep misconstruing or selective reading what I have said. They have the right to decline, they have the right to tell me to delete the image, I have the right to take it if I choose to, what they don't have the right to do is physically assault me. Which you seem to be perfectly fine with though. Some honestly are fine with the entire thing and I have actually sent them the pics. I don't find the whole thing bothersome because I honestly don't get why there's such an over dramatic social stigma regarding photographing a person. This whole thread can be viewed two differently ways by different people.
If minor league is anything like major league you can't just photograph these things. You need media access or your camera won't even make it passed the ticket booth.
I don't even know why I bother. I never said physical assault was ok, but you will most likely get some language thrown your way. Having a child in a frame yards away where you can't identify anything is not what this thread is about. You also don't seem to understand that posting photos of people or children who may be under protection orders could actually be dangerous. Again, if all you want to learn from this thread is that you should shoot kids willynilly go right ahead.
To bring this back to this situation, the dude was not shooting a landscape where they may be a blob that might be the right size of a child. He was deliberately shooting kids where you would be able to tell who they are.
Pretty sure minor league isn't a big deal with that stuff, we have a minor team that's a tigers baseball affiliate and having been there several times over 20 years since the 90s when they started I've only had them check a bag for actual bad stuff like weapons or alcohol from outside, never a camera.
But the point still stands, just take pictures that don't have other peoples kids in them. Like if you are at a park with kids just wait until the kids are gone or ask for permission from the adults in the area. Is it really that hard to ask before you take pictures? Maybe they shouldn't be taking random people's pictures if they can't handle it when someone asks "hey can you not take pics of my kids".
But there's a world of a difference between what happened here and what you're talking about. If you're taking a picture of a landscape, city, etc, and there happen to be people on the edge of the frame or in the background, then that's not the same thing as someone taking pictures where the kids are the explicit subject. You being a photographer should know that there's a difference between the two and how you frame what you're taking a picture of.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp. If you're taking pictures and kids are the focus of the photo and if someone tells you to not photograph their child then just stop and move on. I'm not even saying you need to ask everyone around you for permission. I'm saying simply respect the wishes of someone not wanting to photograph their child and move on. It's not hard. Nor is it unreasonable.
If her recording him from the start was intent to damage a person, then wasnt him recording her and her children through photos the same thing even before that?
No, because as far as we know he wasnt targeting her oe her children, but she is specifically targeting him and wamt physical harm to come to him by calling the police on him.
And going back to how the thing happened originally both parties could have handled this differently. When you got the cops airing on the side of the black guy you know the situation didn't have to go how it went. The cops didn't need to be there, this didn't need to turn into a media circus. Do I shoot kids willy nilly no. I haven't really photographed a kid since October out of the...probably 1500 shots or so that I've uploaded since then. If a person is under protection orders then the last places they should be are Central Park and Times Square for example. I really do try to use some sort of internal common sense to avoid situations like this and when something like this does happen I'm usually not the person escalating the situation and just get screamed at regardless. I'm mostly just in tourist traps, once I'm out of those I'm not photographing anything that has a pulse.
None of us are this:
He acknowledged that he was taking pictures of the kids though.
I don''t speak Burmese. The monks, both adult and children, are photographed by lots of people. In fact you can pay to have photography sessions. I'm no street photography expert, but, for me getting consent before you take a street photo ruins the street photo. I want to capture people doing their normal day-to-day things. I did gesture wildly to get people to some people to pose for photos, but that's a different type of image. I also had pictures taken of me,, including selfies and especially at temples when I was dressed in a traditional longyi. :)
if someone doesn't want their photo taken, I'll abide, including deleting the image if requested, but that's never happened to me. Probably because I don't do street photography in North America. I don't find it interesting, but I do really appreciate people that do. It takes persistence and a talent I don't have.
The kids doesn't exactly translate to her kids though unless Hilary Duff has 14 kids. I don't even know what Hilary Duff even looks like let alone her kids if they were on a field with 10 other kids.
Too add to this he also said it was for "practice", and you cannot tell me there isn't a single other thing he could have been practicing on that didn't involve kids. Even if you are going for real reactions is it that hard to ask for permission from the parents ahead of time? It's insane.
This is a weird take from all this. If you're standing by the legality of it, which is why the cops didn't get involved because their purpose is to maintain the law, then what she did is also perfectly legal. So you're saying what she did was okay then?
Irrelevant. She put in a reasonable request to stop taking photos MULTIPLE times, and instead of just moving on, he escalated it in his responses. You yourself even have said you'd acknowledge the request.
Street photography isn't going away because people start respecting other people's privacy.
What kind of shit is this?
Both parties are bit on the wrong with this. This is why I wondered about the duration of him being there. 10-15 minutes to test some shit out fine. If he was there for an hour...then he should've gotten some consent. Duff put his ass on blast just for being there. She's not even the authority there. She doesn't own the field they were playing at. I personally just leave, he stood his ground.
I cover my thoughts on this in the above post.
The documentation aspects of it do actually. An entire scene and image changes once you even disturb it.
He did ask her which was her kid, most likelytonot put them in his frame, but her response was all of them, and rest is speculation
What is known a big update for his camera just came out for auto focus thing as stated by iser here who own said camera
Also stated by alot of user that photograph, they go to pubic area to photograph sport as practice
The photographer could have left, same with the white woman, but instead she called the US police, and when told he was not doing anything wrong, released his picture to her follower with his action that she deem wrong and want them to do something.
So both are wrong, but he was impolite, her action to me I maliious and wanting physical harm to someone taking picture in public
In California, it's a reason why I don't photograph or record random people on video because I was pretty sure illegal to do so without their consent if i wasn't mistaken.
Paparazzi get away with it because public figures which are celebrities are ok to do so.
But in California there's laws against this stuff
OK? Go find another scene. Like, y'all are acting doom and gloom over photographing consenting individuals.
You don't know if a person cares till you point the camera. There's such a thing as non verbal consent. You can shake your head or put your hands up. Photographer has to respect that. That simple.
Or if you're going to get images of folks who are clearly the subject of the photo then just ask permission. It isn't hard. it won't ruin your shot. The art form will live on.
- Status