All sorts of reasons. Just curious -- do you have a problem with this photo of a modern childrens' carousel in the middle of an ancient European city (take a look at the background)?
Posted on 12/11/2009 8:51:05 PM PST by Dallas59
Because artists do that.
It makes for realism in paintings and drawings rather than using posed models. Not everyone with a camera taking pictures of other people is a pervert.
I’ve been looking at his work from his website. Great photographer. My youngest daughter aspires to that field, she carries her camera with her wherever she goes.
Too bad that people have to assume the worst, forget that it is innocent until proven guilty, and yet still call themselves Conservative.
Gee Whiz...
My children have dozens (maybe hundreds)of photos on the internet, none are in bad taste, and no one is harmed in the least. Why in the world would someone object to their kid being photographed on Santa’s lap?
My wife and I have photographed hundreds of kids and put many of the photos on the net. Not one parent has ever complained. Many have mentioned how delighted they were, and mentioned that their kids were flattered and pleased.
I guess if I took the picture, and a parent complained, I would be perfectly willing to delete it, but I would sure be startled if someone thought that was a reason for calling the police.
Photographing childen is a pretty commonplace sort of activity for ordinary people. Probably most of us are willing to honor your preferences about photographs of your children, but you are asking way too much to expect us to anticipate a level of concern that we don’t share.
What do you think newspaper photographers do when they cover a parade? Or a little-league football game? What do you think parents are doing with their cameras at school plays, and concerts and graduations? Isn’t Santa a lot like that?
How is this a problem?
One of my brothers was an amateur photographer. I always thought he should do it professionally, because he was really good. I don’t know why he didn’t want to. Maybe he thought he’d lose the creativity or the passion.
there is a union of real beard Santas. Boy howdy, it is more than your worth to hire a non-union guy.
“Look for the Union Label...”
If you take some pictures of the TV cameras they have in most malls, they will send down some models for you to photograph...
The fact that he knew to delete the images when asked means he knows that - even though there was no expectation of privacy in a public place - different rules apply when photographing minors, i.e. parental permission is required. If he intended to display the photos he took as part of an exhibit, he would’ve needed to get written permission from ANYONE he photographed for public display (the mall is a private venue which is open to the public).
If he intended to sell the photos (stock agency, perhaps) he would’ve needed model releases from all the people he photographed and property releases from the mall.
The bottom line is that while someone else may possess the means by which to acquire and display your image, it still belongs to you unless you grant the photographer permission to use it. Of course, different rules apply to news photographers, but there is no indication this guy was doing news work. If he were, all he would’ve had to do is flash a press pass.
Having spent about 10 years as a news photog, I would still often ask parents if I could photograph their kids for a news story. And when I couldn’t get permission, depending on the nature of the story, I wouldn’t photograph a child’s face. It never hurts to get permission, especially when dealing with children.
All-in-all, I think this guy was being a jerk.
“Why in the world would someone object to their kid being photographed on Santa’s lap?”
Does it really matter? They did. The idiot who took the pics knew they were perfectly well within their rights to request him to delete the images and he did.
If he were doing photography in a professional capacity, he would’ve had permission to be there, the credentials to prove it and the appropriate releases for people to sign for him to use the images on display.
I did a music video shoot in a real upper crust mall once, and not only did I carry a copy of the written permission we obtained from mall management, so did every single person on my crew, along with name tags indicating our names and organization.
This guy was - at best - lazy for not getting permission and arrogant for thinking the rules didn’t apply to him.
He was - in short - a bonehead.
Now, this being a mall, it is private property and the mall has the right to not allow photography. However, the arrest is way over the top.
Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t. Although the author clearly sides with him by making it sound like he had a perfectly good reason for taking the pictures, I’m suspicious that “freelance photographer” only means “couldn’t cough up the credentials as a professional photographer.”
It’s a free country, and I share your concern for his rights. But I don’t presume his motives to be harmless just because he claims he’s a freelance photographer. And it is actually a little questionable to take photos of strangers who aren’t public figures and who aren’t at an inherently newsworthy event, without getting someone’s permission to do so. (Even at a newsworthy event, reasonable efforts are normally taken to acquire permission for publication. Hence, the photos you SEE in the newspaper have captions identifying the people... because they cooperated with the photojournalist when asked.)
Was he carrying press credentials the day he was arrested? Hell, even news organizations have to get permission to enter malls in an official capacity.
And yeah, I’ve been working in broadcast news for 30 years (and have a few of those Emmy awards myself). If he’s the “pro” his website claims he is, he should’ve known better.
Question if you will people’s lacking efforts to preserve their own liberty, but this isn’t so puzzling:
People trust that security cameras protect them from crime, or at least protect them from having to pay a premium for goods because the business loses money to crime. Security cameras make them feel safer.
Stranger taking pictures of their kids without permission... that makes them feel less safe.
If you are in a public place, you can take pictures of anything you want excepting stuff like “up skirt” shots.
Well, it’s a good thing he was assaulted and arrested without cause. That whole presumption of innocence can be so bothersome. Police and security guards should beat up everyone caught taking photos in public. It would really cut down on rude people who delete images that they legally photographed, just because somebody asks them to.
“If you are in a public place, you can take pictures of anything you want excepting stuff like “up skirt” shots.”
Private malls are not public places. They are private property and the owners/managers of such places have the right to set the rules they deem necessary to protect the comfort and safety of their customers.
As noted above, even news organizations need permission to gain access to malls.
All sorts of reasons. Just curious -- do you have a problem with this photo of a modern childrens' carousel in the middle of an ancient European city (take a look at the background)?
“Well, it’s a good thing he was assaulted and arrested without cause.”
Cause was cited. Read the story again.
“That whole presumption of innocence can be so bothersome.”
“Presumption of innocence” is a legal term that applies to the rights of a defendant on trial. Should this guy go to court, he will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is no general “presumption of innocence” outside the courtroom, otherwise how could any cop arrest anyone? Probable cause goes right out the window. (This ain’t rocket science.)
“Police and security guards should beat up everyone caught taking photos in public.”
First part is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting they should. Second part of quoted statement reveals ignorance on your part: malls are private property that are open to the public. They are not “public places” as though they were public parks, sidewalks or government buildings. Different rules apply. And even more rules apply when it comes to photographing minors in ANY venue, public or private.
“It would really cut down on rude people who delete images that they legally photographed, just because somebody asks them to.”
Again, the fact that he deleted the images when asked indicates he knew the photos were not legally his to take. That’s not even at issue. Please, stop getting emotional about this. I’ve worked in broadcast news for 30 years, 10 of those as a photographer (and a freelancer).
“Public places” does not mean “public property.”
“Public property” does not mean “public places.”
Please don’t use them interchangeably.
Malls are public places, even though they are private property. They are open to the public.
There are laws which apply to public places such as malls, which do not apply to private places such as your home.
Why do you keep repeating the lie that manners equates to guilt? If someone says “excuse me” and you step aside to let them pass, does that prove you agree that you have no legal right to be there? That’s just stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.