Actually if a terrorist organisation wanted to photograph a Marina , a port etc they probably would do it "legitamately" by hiring the appropriate services and certainly spending some serious money.
They could hire a helicopter and fly over the marina etc etc.
Most of the stupid regulations in force are made by old fashioned legislators who think that most terroism is done by "One man and his dog" using unsophisticated equipment and "illegal" aliens or low level workers.
International terroism has moved on (and unfortunately up) a notch or two -- open access is the best weapon -- If an organisation no one has ever heard of before starts hiring all sorts of services it's much easier to run discrete background checks etc rather than drive people underground with repressive and usually not very successful legislation.
And yes --photographing kids round a school without some sort of permission or accreditation is likely to land you in trouble (and deservedly so).
Taking pictures of people playing soccer in a public park is another matter --just say you are "Talent Scouting" for Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool etc --or any other reasonable reason.
As in all things a bit of common sense -- and if there's been recent hysteria in the Press about Paedophilia --then even if YOU ARE right -- just lay low and come back and shoot another time --With permission. With Kids the more permissions you get the better.
camerapapi wrote:
Consider yourself very lucky because photographing people without their consent is ILLEGAL.
No, it isn't.
As I understand the rules in the U.S.:
Shooting on or near sensitive federal property is a problem, but that has little or nothing to do with the people you're shooting.
Shooting someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is problematic. If you're out in public, there is no such legal expectation.
Using someone's image without their consent to promote a commercial venture is certainly legally actionable.
Not only am I not a lawyer, but I'm pretty clueless about photographic law - however I do know that your statement as it stands is false here in the states.
As a step parent, I was at my stepson's school play. Virtually everybody had some form of camera or video camera they used to record the play and photograph the actors. We did this inside the school grounds. Nobody objected which surprised me. In Britain I gather the jobsworths there do object and try to stop people taking photos of their child in a school play. As a result, many parents now won't allow their children to be in a school play. And that gets warped and twisted by the jobsworths, believe me!
Oops...got it. Thanks. I misinterpreted the comment (you probably don't want to know what I was thinking when I first read it). That's what I get for reading these posts to quickly sometimes.
Camerapapa, if taking pictures of people without their consent were illegal, most of us here on the forums would be in jail. People take candids every day. The commercial use of those images is illegal. Where no expectation of privacy exists, all are fair game, but not for finacial gain without release. These were not young children, but 12 to 15 teenage boys between the ages of 14 and 16 (rough guess) playing street hockey in a public arena. No parental supervision. Just a few quick shots to see how fast my new 70-200 f2.8L focused in a fast paced activity. It performed admiralbly, I must add.
Wow, I read most of this thread up until page 7 or 8 and I started scratching my head and wondering what the original subject was....
Anyway, through experience, I've learned to either bring my assistant (she's a woman, that's important as you'll see further) or my wife along to shoots that may cause too much uneasiness on the “locals”. I've found that if people see me with a woman when shooting I don't get hassled. This may sound goofy, but it's from personal experience. I simply do not get hassled in the same places I used to get hassled (almost always involving shooting children) when I have a woman next to me. Stereotype or not, there is obviously a stigma attached to men who are in the park photographing children; this same stereotype simply isn’t attached to women.
It’s become a sad world in this respect, but if I want to get some work done without being hassled, this is the easiest way.
[Edit] I also want to make it clear that I believe it was ENTIRELY within the poster's rights to do what he was doing. What he may need to understand is that the world isn't going to change anytime soon and adjustments might have to be made to stay away from being hassled too much.
sonic wrote:
Wow, I read most of this thread up until page 7 or 8 and I started scratching my head and wondering what the original subject was....
Anyway, through experience, I've learned to either bring my assistant (she's a woman, that's important as you'll see further) or my wife along to shoots that may cause too much uneasiness on the “locals”. I've found that if people see me with a woman when shooting I don't get hassled. This may sound goofy, but it's from personal experience. I simply do not get hassled in the same places I used to get hassled (almost always involving shooting children) when I have a woman next to me. Stereotype or not, there is obviously a stigma attached to men who are in the park photographing children; this same stereotype simply isn’t attached to women.
It’s become a sad world in this respect, but if I want to get some work done without being hassled, this is the easiest way.
[Edit] I also want to make it clear that I believe it was ENTIRELY within the poster's rights to do what he was doing. What he may need to understand is that the world isn't going to change anytime soon and adjustments might have to be made to stay away from being hassled too much....Show more →
This shows exactly how misguided the paranoia is. More than one is the child pornographer who has a female accomplice. But the stereo type is so strong that people just have a single image of what one must be like and thats the male.
I was at a childrens zoo photgraphing animals and got the most hateful stares from some mothers. Although some could have been related to my subjects by looks, at least. I was puzzled then, now I think the lites have finally gone on. I'm so dense some days.
To those complaining about a loss of freedom. We have here 12 pages of some complaint, has anyone come through the door yet to take you?
To the OP: How close were you to the kids playing hockey? I don't like someone taking my picture incognito, i.e. at (1.6 or 1.3 crop x) 200mm, but if someone wants to come up to me and ask, "Hey can I get some shots of you guys playing hockey?" then whatever. Perhaps your behaviour (not the act of taking pictures in and of itself, but the *way* you took the pictures) upset the complainant?
After the police officer asked you what you were doing, did you go up and talk to the kids, explain yourself, apologize? If not, these kids might never know that photographers are by and large normal people.
I was at the wall of the rink. A few of the kids acknowledged me with waves but no words were exchanged. Afterwards, a fellow I know (around 30 yrs old) was in the rink playing a pick-up game with them while he waited for the rest of his players and I spoke with him but the kids shied away. I found out later (yesterday) that he told them I was a stringer for a sports rag (a blatant lie, of course) and they were pissed at the kid who got upset.
Not to totally get off topic, but yea I read this thread...first. Then last week, I was in Los Angeles shooting outdoor portrait shots to get the skyline, etc. Well as I was shooting someone from inside the building (not security) went up to me and said, 'excuse me, you can't take pictures'. I was like well, I'm at a public place. Then the BS excuse of we're on heightened alert and we don't want people to take pics of buildings etc. Funny thing was, at this point I do know my rights. But I didn't even want to argue or have a confrontation with the guy. I just said fine, and left steaming. Yeah, what has this country come to. I can't even shoot pics of a person in front of a building. Lets ban cameras all together because yeah...they can be tools used for terrorism. *sigh*
rickmorealnd wrote:
........ Just a few quick shots to see how fast my new 70-200 f2.8L focused in a fast paced activity. It performed admiralbly, I must add.
I wish you wouldn't drag photography into this forum
nle57 wrote:
Not to totally get off topic, but yea I read this thread...first. Then last week, I was in Los Angeles shooting outdoor portrait shots to get the skyline, etc. Well as I was shooting someone from inside the building (not security) went up to me and said, 'excuse me, you can't take pictures'. I was like well, I'm at a public place. Then the BS excuse of we're on heightened alert and we don't want people to take pics of buildings etc. Funny thing was, at this point I do know my rights. But I didn't even want to argue or have a confrontation with the guy. I just said fine, and left steaming. Yeah, what has this country come to. I can't even shoot pics of a person in front of a building. Lets ban cameras all together because yeah...they can be tools used for terrorism. *sigh*...Show more →
Turn the tables on security busybodies. Demand their ID. Make disparaging remarks about their appearance, dial directory enquiries to find out their companies number after first checking with the police that it is a genuine security agency. Then describe them and their manner and what they're up to in not-too-glowing-detail to the company and let them identify them to you. Like as not the guy will get irrational in which case you can nail him for something. Of course, if he doesn't provide his ID, there's a simple two word phrase ending in "off" that can be used.
I'm so dense some days.