# Am I the only one this has happened to?



## scottkinfw (Apr 20, 2014)

First, to all of the sane people Happy Easter.

So here is what happened to me today. I decided to take my new 300 2.8 is II with 5DII to work on action shots. Evidently, I need a lot of practice to get the most out of this lens, and I am still figuring out the AI Servo along with the focus points (I admit it, I'm a slow learner, but I am plugging away at it, and not giving up)>

The only thing moving today was the dogs at the local dog park, about a half mile down the street. 

I was shooting dogs catching disks, balls, etc., for about 15 minutes, when some jerk walks up to me and says quietly, "don't take pictures of the children". 

I couldn't believe it. I didn't come close to training my lens on a kid. The rig is nothing that can be hidden, and I wasn't wearing my flasher raincoat. I was bothering nobody, and it is in my own neighborhood. I don't know if the guy even had a kid there (there were only about 3 or four, and about 15 dogs).

Anyway, it soured the shoot, but I stayed about a half hour and experimented with different settings. I so pissed that when I left I went over to the idiot and whispered in his ear, "if you ever see me, don't ever talk to me again". Of course he brought our the "do you know who you are talking to B.S., but I was on my way. I was afraid that another word from him and my monopod ball head would be smashed into his brainstem, and I would be in prison.

So, I felt like a pedophile, I was humiliated by a dult, and had my afternoon soiled.

Anybody else have an incident like that, I'd love to hear.

By the way, when I do street photography, I always ask if I may take a picture and respect the subject, so there was no breach of boundaries.
Thanks.

sek


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 20, 2014)

Sign of the times I'm afraid. The guy's out of order. He could have requested you don't take any pictures of his kids, but doesn't sound as if he had any there yet be was hanging around the park with the kids himself. 

If you're going to take pictures in these kind of situations nowadays I suggested you get a CRB certificate or what ever is the equivalent in your country. I have one for the Building Panoramics work I do around the schools and colleges. 

In that sort of situation you can have a copy and produce it for anyone who challenges you. Whether it would pacify the jerk you came across is unknown. 

Unfortunately expect more of this kind of thing. 

The real perverts are the ones who see everyone else as a potential pedophile all the time.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 20, 2014)

There really isn't anything you can say that will stop someone like that. If you react, it just proves to them (in their mind) that you really are dangerous and have to be watched and the longer things go, the worse the behaviour will get.

Try defusing the situation... tell him you are learning photography and taking pictures of the dogs... and show him the pictures....


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> tell him you are learning photography and taking pictures of the dogs


+1


> ... and show him the pictures....


+10


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 20, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > tell him you are learning photography and taking pictures of the dogs
> ...



+1. Exactly.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 21, 2014)

I wouldn't show him the pics or cater to him in any sort of way. You don't have to stop what you're doing and make an effort to "prove" your legitimacy to some random nitwit who is way out of bounds. I'd say "What the f**k is wrong with you? Why would you even suggest that? Get out of here you creep!"


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 21, 2014)

Scott,
Sorry to hear about the situation.

I think Don's suggestions are great. There a lot of crazzzyyyy people out there. What if he has a gun during that time. Situation could become deadly over a simple argument or misunderstanding.

For me, I just got back from in law house. Took 100plus photos of our kids doing egg hunting.

Happy Easter 

Dylan


----------



## TAF (Apr 21, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> The real perverts are the ones who see everyone else as a potential pedophile all the time.



Maybe he thought you were poaching on his territory.


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> There really isn't anything you can say that will stop someone like that. If you react, it just proves to them (in their mind) that you really are dangerous and have to be watched and the longer things go, the worse the behaviour will get.
> 
> Try defusing the situation... tell him you are learning photography and taking pictures of the dogs... and show him the pictures....



Defusing the situation is best. And if you're ever out taking pictures of kids, and they ask you which one is yours, I've always found the best answer is, "Not sure, I haven't picked one out yet."


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

No... but I generally try not to shoot other kids without permission and I know you weren't doing that.

That's tough, because I can smoothie with home because I have a crazy wife who would be concerned about pervs so she might have asked me to do something stupid like that. I would have approached the photog and asked that they not photograph my kid because I have a bat shit crazy wife...

But she has mellowed. 

I photograph my daughter's school events and no one has ever asked me not to... but I think I volunteer the year book info pretty quickly so they know why I'm doing it.

As a joke I have though about getting an index card in my fedora that says press... but that seems silly.

Don't take too much offense. At least the guy cared about his kid, presuming there was his kid in the mix... because we see a ton of apathy from some parents.

Also... maybe you have Jon Hamm condition where your package is just huge even when flaccid so it looks like you are hiding a cobra inyour pants.


----------



## tron (Apr 21, 2014)

Back in the 90s I was on a bridge over a station taking pictures. I am not even sure there were trains parked. I remember piles of armed cement. There was a person who was throwing rocks at me saying that I may be a spy!

I told him that I was talking pictures as a student assignment (I was taking to a free black & white class and had to present some pictures) but I do not remember that it helped a lot. This guy was working for the public sensor and I am pretty sure that this (throwing stones) was the hardest thing he has done that month!


----------



## Kaweeka (Apr 21, 2014)

Happened to me a few years back at the Whistler tube park. Just pointed to my children and said "if those are your kids I'll stop now." She went from foaming at the mouth to red faced fast enough to freeze the action on the slope!


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

Kaweeka said:


> Happened to me a few years back at the Whistler tube park. Just pointed to my children and said "if those are your kids I'll stop now." She went from foaming at the mouth to red faced fast enough to freeze the action on the slope!



You should have taken a photo of her just then and really pissed her off.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 21, 2014)

Whenever I take pictures where there might be kids in the vicinity, I talk to the parents/adults to make it clear that I am not taking pictures of the kids, and if they are cool with me taking pictures in the area. Either they have been okay with it, or said okay and asked their kids to move over (happened once- but the parent might have misunderstood thinking her kids were ruining the shot, LOL). 
I don't care if the parent is crazy or not, I wouldn't try and piss them off.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 21, 2014)

Thanks all for the support.

Here is the epilogue.

I did offer to show him the pics, but red faced, he declined. When I left, I did take his pic, and I let him know that I was doing it, just to piss him off.

Here is the kicker. I am a respected surgeon in town. I get total enjoyment behind my camera, I get my creative outlet, and it is a stress reliever. In a given week, many people put their lives in my hands. Not a big deal, it is my profession. I like being anonymous behind a camera, and also having no responsibilities.

So, I would be the last one in the world to be involved in this and at the same time, I am furious at this twit for appointing himself playground monitor. 

Given all that is going on in the world, I am like so many of you, very paranoid about kids, so I don't point a lens at any that aren't family or friends who request portraits.

Sheesh.

sek


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

Actually, it did happen once. I just got a lens from Amazon, a 70-200 f/4L USM... and I was excited about. I got the delivery @ 1:45p.m. and I needed to pick up my kid from school around 2:30, so I took my body and my new lens to the school parking lot and waited. While I waited for my daughter and the kids to be dismissed into the parking lot, I rolled down my window and took some boring photos... power lines, trees (stuff that was high and away from the parents cars and their kids that weren't old enough to be in school). 

And a few minutes before the kids are let out I get a tap on my window from one of the janitors at the school. And that poor guy is put in the awkward position of telling me to not photograph... but he said... oh you are one of the parents... we got a call... 

And at that point I volunteered to put it away. I didn't put the janitor through the uncomfortable circumstance of asking a parent to put away a camera. 

But that was annoying... because I think I was at the school for a good three or four years at that point, and I really wasn't doing anything crazy... and I was in the parking lot... not like a crazy perv across the street with my 600mm lens... but yes... it is the world we live in. 

Amazingly, despite everyone and their dog having a camera on their phone, REAL cameras are feared and evidently, a cause for concern.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

scottkinfw said:


> Thanks all for the support.
> 
> Here is the epilogue.
> 
> ...



Make sure you have the lens insured before you go around taking people's photos and pissing them off. If they act out and decide to smash your body/lens to the ground... I wouldn't want to rely on the police to find them and make them responsible for the the cost of the damages... and even if they were caught, they might not have two farthings to rub together...


----------



## Meh (Apr 21, 2014)

Here's the thing... as much as you have the right to take photographs, people have the right to speak to you. How you react is your own responsibility. Getting furious, having your day spoiled, feeling like smashing him with you monopod, provoking him by taking his photo, etc. are all overreactions to someone who decided to speak to you. 

From what you describe, he wasn't rude about it. So... instead of feeling angry the above advice about telling anyone who asks that you're taking pictures of the dogs and showing them the pictures is the probably the best choice.

The fact is there are plenty of people out there who are trolling around taking pictures of people's kids and maybe it's not so bad that people in the community are watching out for it.

More and more, we seem to be living in a society where everyone is taking the attitude that they should be able to do what they want, when they want, and how they want without question or concern. But as I said above, if that's what you believe then you also have to accept that others have the same right and that includes speaking their mind. So instead of having "how dare you question me or speak to me" mentality why not just say "thanks for the advice" and not let your own angry response ruin your day.

If you would always ask permission to photograph a person in shooting street photography then perhaps shooting at the dog park could be the same... introduce yourself to the folks and let them know you'd like to take pictures of the dogs. Maybe even give them a card with your website if you have one and tell them you'll post a few photos if you get any good shots.

Just my two cents.


----------



## nmccrea43 (Apr 21, 2014)

Funny story! 

I was in Colorado last winter skiing with my wife and another couple. We are completely normal looking young adults from the midwest. We were at Copper Mountain Resort after a full day of skiing having a nice dinner at a slope side restaurant (still in our ski gear). I had my 5d2 and 50 1.4 (hardly a obtrusive setup) and i was taking a few pics of our friends and the ambiance (typical vacation stuff). It was busy and I was not doing anything to attract attention other than taking a few harmless photos in a busy public place. 

Then, some guy comes up to me and asks to see my camera (he didn't say it in a nice way). I asked why, and he said he wanted to see if I had taken pictures of his kids. He then accused me of taking photos of children in the restaurant and called me a sicko (and something else worse but I don't remember). My wife and friends were as shocked as me and I basically told him to go f**k himself. Plus me and my friend are big guys and this guy was maybe 5'5" so there wasn't much he could do. However, it ruined my night as it left me pissed off the whole time. 

Because I drove 800 miles and spent thousand of dollars so I could take pictures of random kids in a restaurant in Colorado? What am I going to do with these pictures? Some people are just paranoid... Fun world we live in, huh???


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

I know getting into fights isn't socially acceptable... but in my middle age I'm more willing to kick a little ass than I was when I was younger. But it feels awkward to tell someone... give me five minutes to put my gear away and then I'll happily beat that ass. 



nmccrea43 said:


> Funny story!
> 
> I was in Colorado last winter skiing with my wife and another couple. We are completely normal looking young adults from the midwest. We were at Copper Mountain Resort after a full day of skiing having a nice dinner at a slope side restaurant (still in our ski gear). I had my 5d2 and 50 1.4 (hardly a obtrusive setup) and i was taking a few pics of our friends and the ambiance (typical vacation stuff). It was busy and I was not doing anything to attract attention other than taking a few harmless photos in a busy public place.
> 
> ...


----------



## dcm (Apr 21, 2014)

Hasn't happened to me yet, but I wouldn't be surprised since I often shoot family in public places.

I arranged private snowboard lessons for my teen age daughters a few years back. Lots of people of all ages on the slopes. While I was taking a break I grabbed my camera and waited at the bottom of the slope for them. Got some great photos of them coming down the hill with their instructor. When they got to the bottom they had a great laugh. They had stopped on the hill part way down and noticed some guy with a camera at the bottom. They thought it was cute some dad was taking pictures of his kids. Then they got to the bottom... 

Maybe some business cards for a photography business will diffuse these situations. It would also help with the referrals and requests I get anyway.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 21, 2014)

.
Many, many years ago a Unitarian minister I knew said to me: "People are afraid." It didn't seem to fit into our conversation, and it hung in the air for a frozen moment before we moved on. For months afterward I pondered why he said that. Finally, I came to a realization that what most motivates we humans is fear. Nothing else is as powerful. Today we live in a world seemingly turned upside down and people are fed a steady diet of fear-mongering media mash (n. a soft, pulpy mass). This mash ferments into paranoia for some people. I'm sure a lot of this has to do with the fact that we now live in a surveillance state and know we are being spied upon at every turn -- and people are sick of it and want to lash out.

Anyway, I've had two such unpleasant incidents in the past few years. One afternoon I was standing on a sidewalk waiting for a public transit bus. When afternoon school buses went past I took pictures of a few of them. Part of my journalism history involved the trucking industry, so I just naturally take pictures of large vehicles when I see them -- especially when I'm bored and waiting for a bus. Within minutes there were four law enforcement cars in front of me, and I was literally surrounded by at least four local police and sheriff deputies. They wanted to know why I was taking pictures of children on school buses. Ridiculous, yes, but people now see danger everywhere, and police have to respond to satisfy their fears.

Another time I went to the summer carnival of the Catholic parish where I spent eight years in grammar school as a child. I was taking pictures of adults and the band that was playing. A woman approached and asked why I was taking pictures of her grandchild. I went farther than I normally would and finally showed her the pictures I'd taken. There were no children in any of the pictures I'd taken. She still wasn't satisfied -- and nothing I could possibly have said or done would have satisfied her poisoned mind. A few minutes later a police officer patrolling the event informed me that I was being asked to leave. I was thoroughly disgusted. Over time I've come to see humor in that kind of a welcome back to my childhood alma mater, especially given that it's a Catholic church parish. Still makes me sad though.

I don't shy away from shooting anything that interests me and is legal. There will be times when the poison in some person's brain will try to infect me. When that happens I mostly just smile a lot, play dumb and agree with them -- but never to the point of putting myself or my integrity/honor in jeopardy. For me, public photography is worth the effort.

Yesterday I had a different kind of interaction with a delusional character on the streets. On the sidewalk across the street from City Hall, Philadelphia, I saw a man had set up a table and was selling trinkets off it. As I came upon the scene I noticed he was nodding off and thought that could be a good picture. As soon as I raised the camera (5D3 with a 35mm lens) he popped to life and starting waving his hands and saying no. I took the camera away from my face, smiled at him and he started saying, "no pictures, no pictures." I said, "Sure, I understand," since I don't find it worth getting into arguments with people who for whatever reason don't want their picture taken. Unfortunately, he wouldn't leave it at that. As I started taking pictures of other folks on the street he began demanding I leave, "Move along, take it somewhere else, go do that in your own neighborhood," he started saying. Annoyed, I said to him, "There's nothing about you that's worth taking a picture. Get over yourself. I'm taking pictures of other people on the public sidewalk here."

Defeated that I would not be bullied, I overheard him whining to a guy at the next vendor table "...how these guys were taking their pictures all the time and selling them on the internet for millions of dollars." That gave me a good laugh and I resumed moseying down the street.

Anyway, if anyone knows where I can sell these street pictures for millions of dollars, please let me know.


----------



## Meh (Apr 21, 2014)

nmccrea43 said:


> Funny story!
> 
> I was in Colorado last winter skiing with my wife and another couple. We are completely normal looking young adults from the midwest. We were at Copper Mountain Resort after a full day of skiing having a nice dinner at a slope side restaurant (still in our ski gear). I had my 5d2 and 50 1.4 (hardly a obtrusive setup) and i was taking a few pics of our friends and the ambiance (typical vacation stuff). It was busy and I was not doing anything to attract attention other than taking a few harmless photos in a busy public place.
> 
> ...



In this case, the guy was completely out of line. He was accusing you of something and demanding to see your pictures. People have the right to take pictures in any public place and, technically, that includes taking pictures of kids, dogs, etc. There's just so little social tolerance these days.... everyone feels their rights trump everyone else's rights and half the time they don't even have the rights they are claiming such as "you can't photograph me without my permission". Such a self-centred society we live in and it's getting worse.

Regardless though, getting angry or telling someone off just makes it worse. In such situations I try to see it from their perspective and respond politely. If they push it though, then I might respond more firmly. There's a fine there I suppose.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I know getting into fights isn't socially acceptable... but in my middle age I'm more willing to kick a little ass than I was when I was younger. But it feels awkward to tell someone... give me five minutes to put my gear away and then I'll happily beat that ass. [



OK, I'm not prone to violence but the way you stated this, it cracked me up! ;D

Let's be honest, most of us probably sympathize. Like you, I'm middle aged and, it seems like the more I see of life that can be unfair sometimes, the more tempted I am to want to yield to a primal impulse and 'fix the problem', at least in a fleeting fantasy.

In reality however, we know violence only makes matters worse, usually for us and not the jerk.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

I have business cards in my wallet, but I don't have them to justify my existence, just if someone asks where I post my work or to look at my catalog... then I'll throw one down because it is easier than giving them my email address or phone number. Basically calling cards because I don't like talking to people.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 21, 2014)

Be glad that he spoke to you and didn't just call the police. I know folks who have ended up in the back of a police cruiser. People are paranoid - but, unfortunately with the rise of the internet - the perverts are out there and taking and sharing pictures, too. So the paranoia is not completely out of line. At least now in the digital age, if you are approached and accused, you can immediately show the pics to prove your innocence. Back in the film days, it was not so easy.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 21, 2014)

Meh said:


> People have the right to take pictures in any public place



There's a distinction to be made between what's within your legal rights and what's polite or ethical. In the U.S., you have the right to go around like Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged and insult everyone you meet, so long as you don't do it in a way that amounts to _fighting words_. It is, however, extremely uncivil to do so. Regardless of your rights, it's uncivil to take photos of people who don't want to be photographed. The world is not your modeling agency, and its people are not your hired "talent." Don't treat people as mere scenery in the theater performance that is your life.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

To the OP, I think I speak for many photographers when I say that photographing people, esp anonymous people in public is somewhat akin to public speaking and can be unsettling and a little scary sometimes. It takes confidence and nerve.

You can't control the other guy, but you can control yourself. It's up to you to keep the encounter positive and not play (into) his game.

I photograph school events, swim meets, boy scouts, church stuff, etc. I have always tried to keep an attitude of confidence when I shoot these things. In other words, I shoot like I belong there and I'm shooting for a purpose. It doesn't matter if I am shooting for an official purpose or for my own purpose. If I am approached, I simply respond that I am shooting pictures to share with everyone (parents usually) for them to have of their kids. It rarely goes past that. I am very accommodating and cheerful about it. I offer them my card and make sure they know how to see all of my pictures on my zenfolio page. There they will see thousands of images of many different things that include kids. I treat any inquiry like I assume they are interested in my images and want know how to obtain them.

If they are negative or accusatory, I pretty much just act the same way, like I've done nothing wrong and if I stop, one or many people will miss out on the results of my efforts (that I offer free of charge). Depending on the event and my level of desire or the importance of the images, I might elect to stop or I might elect to get someone of importance involved to shut the jerk up.

The difference in my usual situation and your stated situation is the anonymity and lack of a connection to a purpose except for your own enjoyment. Unfortunately, in this day and age cameras make people nervous. Blame it on the negative media, rude and invasive paparazzi and unconstitutional ordinances/laws against public photography. I would have given the guy my card (without an address). What pervert up to no good offers to share their identity? I might have offered to share the pictures but I also would have explained that I'm simply enjoying the day like anyone else and not breaking any laws. If I had to pack up and leave to diffuse the situation, so be it. But I would have tried my best to turn it around and put the guy at ease first because it's in my neighborhood and I'm likely to see the guy again.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > People have the right to take pictures in any public place
> ...



Agreed and well said. Just because _you can_ do something legal doesn't mean _you should_. I'm not saying you did anything wrong. But invading someone's personal space with a long lens makes people nervous and potentially feel threatened. (Regardless of your intent you can't always know how others may interpret things.)

In this case I don't think you acted inappropriately but the situation did give another observer an opportunity/excuse to do what _they could_ do even if _they shouldn't_. Which in this case is be the park savior/protector/big shot/bully.


----------



## sanj (Apr 21, 2014)

Sign of bad times.
Lets not judge the man who stopped you, in his mind he did his 'citizen job of the day'. He did what he thought was correct. He should have checked the situation properly before reacting but I am glad that there are people out there who feel that they need to protect the kids. Good. I think it is incorrect on anyone's part to call him a pervert. 

I have a similar story but perhaps I, unlike you, was actually wrong. I had bought an underwater housing for my S90. I took it to my gym pool in broad daylight to see how it works. There were just kids in the pool. Boys. I was NOT taking their photos just trying to see how the housing feels underwater. One fat mama started singing the opera… I immediately stopped. 

Good luck with learning servo focus etc. Try back button focus please.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Be glad that he spoke to you and didn't just call the police. I know folks who have ended up in the back of a police cruiser. People are paranoid - but, unfortunately with the rise of the internet - the perverts are out there and taking and sharing pictures, too. So the paranoia is not completely out of line. At least now in the digital age, if you are approached and accused, you can immediately show the pics to prove your innocence. Back in the film days, it was not so easy.



But we shouldn't have to constantly prove out innocence. For a benign activity such as photography, we should not be automatically thrown in to consideration as either terrorists or child rapists. 

Afterall... those who have participated in the bikini thread are not all full-grown lady rapists... 

If it is a public place... people are being photographed... not necessarily by a photographer... but by street light cameras, parking lot cameras, cameras at a checkout... 

Hey... don't photograph me... that died a long time ago.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 21, 2014)

I'm sorry to hear about your experience. I've had this happen in numerous of times, places, and situations. It can be unnerving at times, but it's best to let it roll off your shoulders. If someone asks you not to take a picture of them, fine, of their kids, then ask who are their kids and just kinda keep them in the back of your mind to frame around, and so on and so forth. I've had people request no photos and had people slip me a $20 to take a pick of them and email it to them. You know, just learn to roll with the punches and not let anything get in the way of getting your primary objective done, and that's to get photos done.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

sanj said:


> Sign of bad times.
> Lets not judge the man who stopped you, in his mind he did his 'citizen job of the day'. He did what he thought was correct. He should have checked the situation properly before reacting but I am glad that there are people out there who feel that they need to protect the kids. Good. I think it is incorrect on anyone's part to call him a pervert.
> 
> I have a similar story but perhaps I, unlike you, was actually wrong. I had bought an underwater housing for my S90. I took it to my gym pool in broad daylight to see how it works. There were just kids in the pool. Boys. I was NOT taking their photos just trying to see how the housing feels underwater. One fat mama started singing the opera… I immediately stopped.
> ...



I'm getting a little impatient for Dual pixel to be added to the 5D mkiii firmware. The last time I used back button focusing while taking video, it wasn't good. The aperture opened up... it searched a little... it was annoying.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Be glad that he spoke to you and didn't just call the police. I know folks who have ended up in the back of a police cruiser. People are paranoid - but, unfortunately with the rise of the internet - the perverts are out there and taking and sharing pictures, too. So the paranoia is not completely out of line. At least now in the digital age, if you are approached and accused, you can immediately show the pics to prove your innocence. Back in the film days, it was not so easy.
> ...



I agree with you but only to a point. Photography by security cameras is something most people accept and believe to be benign because it's anonymous and is the same for everyone. No one is 'singled out' that anyone can tell.

Photography by an individual with a zoom lens is more personal. I agree that we shouldn't have to feel embarrassed to shoot public pictures but society today is what it is. Girls should be able to walk down the street in provocative clothing and not be objectified, judged or harassed but it happens anyway. It happens because people are human and think/do things for their own reasons derived from what they feel is right, their morals/ethics or what gives them satisfaction, good or bad.

Everyone makes judgments based on their observations and assumptions regardless of the truth or accuracy of those assumptions. Then they act on those assumptions and judgments.

All we can control is our own actions and try to anticipate a problem before we do things to cause it.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Be glad that he spoke to you and didn't just call the police. I know folks who have ended up in the back of a police cruiser. People are paranoid - but, unfortunately with the rise of the internet - the perverts are out there and taking and sharing pictures, too. So the paranoia is not completely out of line. At least now in the digital age, if you are approached and accused, you can immediately show the pics to prove your innocence. Back in the film days, it was not so easy.
> ...



Now I need to go search for the bikini thread!! ;D


----------



## traingineer (Apr 21, 2014)

Every time I go out to take some images, I usually have to keep the camera inside the bag. Because every time I have it out, everyone passing by just stares angrily at me for no reason. And when I do want to take some images, I try to be pretty stealthy and keep it pointing far away from any person.
I usually find it easy just to be near something like a corner of a wall/ in front of a tree, pretending to take pictures of it when I'm just taking pictures of other things.

(BTW I'm just a young teen.  )


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2014)

It has happened to me with the 300/2.8. As if a sneak photographer would to be so visible! Ironically, using an SX50 or its many equivalents of much greater range attracts no attention.


----------



## Midphase (Apr 21, 2014)

Meanwhile, anyone with a cel phone could be taking photos of children or anyone else very covertly. 

If anything, you'd think that someone with an obviously professional looking rig would definitely be a legitimate photographer!

If people don't want to run the risk of someone taking photos of their kids (or themselves), they probably shouldn't leave their house.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> It has happened to me with the 300/2.8. As if a sneak photographer would to be so visible! Ironically, using an SX50 or its many equivalents of much greater range attracts no attention.



+ 1

That is what l would explain someone who accuses me to take pics of people secretly!

Other ideas to react:
- "I am Mr.. . . . . what is you name?"- politely... to get the name of the other person to show some openess
- offering to call the police because you feel threatened

Preventive deescalation:
- pointing the lens while not in use to the ground
- E.g. ask dog owners it if is o.k. to take photos of the dogs. Then you are part of the group and your intention is cleared.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 21, 2014)

I once was photographing ducks with my 300 f2.8, when this guy behind me tapped my shoulder, I turned around, and he said "why don't you take some pictures of me?" and posed in what can only be described as a flasher version of the ending to an ice-skating routine. I giggled and said I would rather stick to the birds. He waved his hand about and flicked his fingers and yelled at me that I wasn't good enough for him and that I could eff off. I turned and took a quick step towards him and he ran like scared duck flapping his arms around. It wasn't scary or humiliating, but it shows there are a few people out there that don't quite follow the norm... Just don't worry about them..lol.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 21, 2014)

Humans....perfectly imperfect!

If you shoot in public enough, you'll eventually have this issue so it's a great forum post.

Lots of good advice and stories.

Scott...sometimes bad things happen to good people. Just shake it off.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 21, 2014)

This whole thread is a perfect example of why I shoot Wildlife, Landscape & Underwater Images, People are just too much of a PIA.

In the situation of the Op, I can empathise, my initial reaction would have to be this dickhead was insulting me, being lumped into the potential pedophile grouping would have me considering a Lobotomy on the Guy, and sounds like the Op is qualified in that area, but, there's always a but.

Sometimes we just need to chill, look around and appreciate the other person's perspective (even if he is a complete dickhead), we are living in a fishbowl that's not really improving, our Children's future & well being is without a doubt our most important objective in life, if the chap had children in the Park, he's a concerned Parent with poor communication skills and the "soft" approach is recommended, if he's an individual in the Park with no Kids and comments, he's just looking for trouble, the "soft" approach is also recommended.

I spent 16 Years in the Army, the "soft" approach is not my preferred option generally, but the world's changed, and Im 64 now with the last 30 years of experience that I think really count, at 34 I think I may have gone for the Tripod Lobotomy without anaesthesia.


----------



## Meh (Apr 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > People have the right to take pictures in any public place
> ...



That's true also, but different from what I was trying to get at. When someone comes up to a photographer and demands that you do not take pictures of them, their kids, their dog, etc. and/or demands to see your photos they are acting as though it's their right not to be photographed when in fact the opposite is true. Legally, the photographer is not prohibited from taking pictures in public. Harassing someone though by interfering with them, cursing at them, threatening, assaulting, damaging their gear (e.g. hollywood celebs) is in fact prohibited. The point is people tend to think they have rights they don't actually have and then get irate when they think you're violating those perceived rights.

Social norms are a different matter. People do feel uncomfortable being photographed and if I noticed someone specifically photographing me whether with a long lens or a smartphone I would feel uncomfortable. If they kept it up I might ask them to stop but would more likely just walk away. If they followed me and continued photographing me specifically now they might be crossing a legal line in the sense of harassing me.

So, yes I get your point but I was specifically talking about rights and the law, not social norms.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 21, 2014)

Meh said:


> That's true also, but different from what I was trying to get at. When someone comes up to a photographer and demands that you do not take pictures of them, their kids, their dog, etc. and/or demands to see your photos they are acting as though it's their right not to be photographed when in fact the opposite is true. Legally, the photographer is not prohibited from taking pictures in public. Harassing someone though by interfering with them, cursing at them, threatening, assaulting, damaging their gear (e.g. hollywood celebs) is in fact prohibited. The point is people tend to think they have rights they don't actually have and then get irate when they think you're violating those perceived rights.
> 
> Social norms are a different matter. People do feel uncomfortable being photographed and if I noticed someone specifically photographing me whether with a long lens or a smartphone I would feel uncomfortable. If they kept it up I might ask them to stop but would more likely just walk away. If they followed me and continued photographing me specifically now they might be crossing a legal line in the sense of harassing me.
> 
> So, yes I get your point but I was specifically talking about rights and the law, not social norms.



I'm glad we're mostly in agreement. My response was partly based on a previous thread on street photography, where at least one person said he likes to get in people's faces to capture their reactions. In my opinion that's not at all acceptable, and may violate some other aspect of law. Having a camera in hand does not exempt a person from other laws governing behavior.

Also, if a photographer is "free" to take photos in public places, people in the area are equally "free" to express, even in very strong terms, their disapproval of his public photography. Having a camera in hand does not exempt a person from being the recipient of someone else's "free speech."


----------



## Meh (Apr 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Also, if a photographer is "free" to take photos in public places, people in the area are equally "free" to express, even in very strong terms, their disapproval of his public photography. Having a camera in hand does not exempt a person from being the recipient of someone else's "free speech."



Absolutely correct and this is why I said in my previous post that the best response is to just politely respond such as "thanks for the advice" or "I'll keep that in mind". There is no law prohibiting others from speaking to us, what is in our control is how we respond and react. Getting angry and/or escalating the situation is what is going to ruin your day. We live in a society. There are other people and we are going to "bump into them from time to time" whether that is in a verbal interaction, a disagreement, a difference of opinion, or even physically bumping into someone. I just read in the news some kid got shot in the foot because some other kid thought he was cutting into line to buy shoes. In the words of Chris Rock... "if someone scuffs your Puma, let it slide".


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 21, 2014)

Meh said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if a photographer is "free" to take photos in public places, people in the area are equally "free" to express, even in very strong terms, their disapproval of his public photography. Having a camera in hand does not exempt a person from being the recipient of someone else's "free speech."
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## ams2d (Apr 21, 2014)

I understand the OP issues.

Was taking video of my son in swimming class through the glass and a woman came up and started quizzing me about who I am; which child was mine; what was the name of the child; can I point out his mother. The funny thing I was more focused on what he was doing in the pool and was trying to move away from the glare of the glass and didn’t care about what she was asking. But afterwards I felt like I need to bring his birth certificate and a picture of me and him together to prove he was my son.

When we go to the children's museum I try to focus on just him and if I do post any pictures of him I either crop out the other children or did have one where all you saw was the back of the other child's head.

Understand the way society has become because of how other people actions they want to error on the side of caution or "bad" instead of giving some slack. Smart phones are far more prevalent than cameras today and someone walking around with a DSLR and a lens walking openly in public spaces in my opinion does not scream “this person must be up to no good”. I would have asked did he check all the smart phones in the area to make certain there wasn’t someone taking pictures of his kids because the percentage of that happening would likely be greater. 

I had thought to try and work on my photography skills by going to the local ball fields and take pictures of the kids playing baseball/soccer. I haven’t yet because of situations like the OP has encountered and feel that I would need business cards or something to prove that I wasn’t a pervert taking sport shots of kids. If I do decide to try am going to contact someone in charge to ask before I go if I am permitted and may even offer the parents the pictures if they ask why am I taking pictures of their child.

My luck the next time I go to the zoo or any place with animals PETA will ask me if I got the written permission of the animals before shooting.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 21, 2014)

Rights are superseded by social responsibility.

For example, one has the right to free speech, but that does not mean you have the right to scream out "FIRE" is a crowded movie theatre.. Similarly, you have the right to take pictures in public places (varies depending on what country you are in and which public space), but in doing so, do you have the right to harass someone to get that picture? .... and everyone is going to have a different definition and a different threshold...

If your actions as a photographer are "pushing someone over the edge", you can either try to de-escalate things, or if that fails, leave. Push them over the edge and who knows what will happen... but the safe bet is that both parties loose.


----------



## Meh (Apr 21, 2014)

Definitely a good idea to speak to the coach and/or other parents before hanging around a ball field or hockey arena taking photos of kids. Even better, if you're just looking to practice sports photography shoot a men's league and still let them know who you are... they might even buy some photos


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 21, 2014)

ams2d said:


> Understand the way society has become because of how other people actions they want to error on the side of caution or "bad" instead of giving some slack. Smart phones are far more prevalent than cameras today and someone walking around with a DSLR and a lens walking openly in public spaces in my opinion does not scream “this person must be up to no good”. I would have asked did he check all the smart phones in the area to make certain there wasn’t someone taking pictures of his kids because the percentage of that happening would likely be greater.



It's not about danger... it's about the appearance of danger... The cell phones are tiny and go unnoticed. The DSLR, particularly with a "big white" mounted on it, screams out "look at me" and you get noticed. People have watched so many stupid television shows that they are loosing connection to the real world and have trouble putting things in perspective.


----------



## Meh (Apr 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Rights are superseded by social responsibility.



I get your point, but you're overstating it. Rights can not be superseded... otherwise it wouldn't be a right. But there are limits to certain rights... you have the right to free speech but that does not include inciting a riot by falsely screaming fire. It also doesn't include harassing people. Similarly, taking photos of people in public is not prohibited (and this has been held up in court cases I believe) but following someone around taking photos of them day after day could cross a line into harassment.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ams2d said:
> 
> 
> > Understand the way society has become because of how other people actions they want to error on the side of caution or "bad" instead of giving some slack. Smart phones are far more prevalent than cameras today and someone walking around with a DSLR and a lens walking openly in public spaces in my opinion does not scream “this person must be up to no good”. I would have asked did he check all the smart phones in the area to make certain there wasn’t someone taking pictures of his kids because the percentage of that happening would likely be greater.
> ...



It may be something else: if you take photos of public spaces, and people happen to be in those photos (e.g. museum) then it's OK. If you zoom in on individuals then it's not OK. Cell phones don't yet zoom well, and they're slow. I think people know that if you're in a cell phone photo it shouldn't be a surprise.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> ...If you zoom in on individuals then it's not OK...



In an ethical sense, that might be true. But from a purely legal standpoint it isn't. 

There is no automatic right to privacy in public spaces (in the U.S. at least). If you are in public, you should expect that you can have your picture taken by anyone. How they use that picture is another matter – editorial or artistic use okay, commercial endorsement of the can of Coke you're holding in your hand is not okay.

Don't want to hijack the thread, but did want to make sure that was clear.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 21, 2014)

Meh said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Rights are superseded by social responsibility.
> ...


Actually, rights can be superseded and often are. Take free speech... you have a right to free speech but that right is superseded (in law and repeatedly upheld by the courts) both by what is known as the "fire exemption" (yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre) and various anti-hate laws and slander laws.

In Canada, almost all civil rights can be suspended under "The War Measures Act". All these things are done for the good of society... 

Also in Canada, someone took the Federal Government to court because the navy warships were not wheelchair accessible. (We have a law about all government facilities MUST be wheelchair accessible) The court challenge was thrown out because to make the ships wheelchair accessible would have endangered the rest of the crew. 

To quote Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

You can always wear a burka. They are fashionable, GREAT in the summer, and hide your face extremely well.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 21, 2014)

Note to original poster: alas, your experience is ubiquitous. Morons think they know either photography or the law (and know neither), and feel as though they have the right to brace you about shooting. They don't. Period. My response is to start off easy: 'I am a local photographer, here's my card, I do a lot of street shooting, which is what I am doing. Wanna see a few of my pictures?' (A few bucks for a business card is money well-spent.) If they persist, I tell them they are interfering with me, and please leave.' If they persist, I put on my 'I'm planning a left thoracotomy for you' look and say 'If you have a problem, call the police. If you don't, I'll call the police, and then you will really have a problem.' I rarely get to step 3, but I have. 
Remember that you have every right to shoot whatever is publicly available, not because you are a respected surgeon (as am I), but because you are an American citizen exercising your rights in public. (This varies overseas.) The literature on the rights of street photographers (professional and otherwise) is extensive; you may want to look at NPPA's website, and there is a host of others.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 21, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> You can always wear a burka. They are fashionable, GREAT in the summer, and hide your face extremely well.



jdramirez does an excellent job of using _reductio ad absurdum_ to illustrate the fact that law has, perhaps, not kept up with modern society. In our world, one would have to go to extreme, even absurd, measures to be free of the intrusions of wannabe paparazzi with long telephoto lenses. The image of the burka, with its allusion to the disempowered, evokes the timeless argument that the law only protects those who are aware that their image has been misused, and have the resources to pursue remedy in the courts.

Thank you, jdramirez, for your concise and elegant contribution.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 21, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> Remember that you have every right to shoot whatever is publicly available



And they have the right to insult and berate you for it; neither is civil. If you wish to claim every millimeter of the law, you must concede to others the same.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 21, 2014)

Independent of whether the guy was or was not a jerk, it is important to recognize that this person did not know the photographer, the photographer's background, nor the photographer's intentions. This person was acting only on what he observed (kids, dogs, photographer, taking pictures) and his interpretation (flawed or otherwise). That does not make this person's actions right, but it does make them understandable. 

When the person told the photographer "don't take pictures of the kids", a simple smile and an answer of "don't worry, I won't" might have settled the issue. If I felt it was necessary, I would have moved to another spot where my lens is not pointing where the kids are. Is that giving into a bully? Yup. But this is not the time for ego to govern our actions. 

The key is NOT to escallate the issue by either arguing with the person or worse taking action. The goal is to get the pictures you wanted without getting into a confrontation. 

It is unfortunate that we do seen to be in the middle of a "war against photography" Often we are called upon to justify or at least explain our actions. It is not right, it is not fair. I wish it weren't so. But it is.

I wish I knew what the solution is, but I do know that responding in an assertative manner and "making sure they saw me take their picture" ain't it.


----------



## mdrewpix (Apr 21, 2014)

As a news photographer, I am very accustomed to being questioned - accused - like this although I have to say it doesn't happen all that often. Generally I just ignore the person or ask them not to bother me. That usually works.
Having been in the news business for a very long time I can tell you that in general, as a subject, if you are in view of the general public, you can be photographed. It doesn't matter whether it's in a public park or in the picture window of your home, if you are in view of anyone passing by you are fair game.
As was mentioned before, taking pictures in public areas is perfectly legal in Canada and most places around the world.
But in no circumstance can you go on private property to take photos without permission. An earlier post suggested that a museum was a public place. It is not. Nor are shopping malls or libraries. Nor their parking lots. 
If you are on a public street and see something happening in a parking lot or through the window of a building, you can shoot. But you can't walk around in a museum or any other private building or its adjacent property taking pictures without permission.
That, of course, only covers actually taking the photographs. What is done with them later is a whole other thing.
But the perception in the public that any person with a camera is a pervert in training - or in practice - is an unfortunate one. I don't know what we can do to change it.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

mdrewpix said:


> But the perception in the public that any person with a camera is a pervert in training - or in practice - is an unfortunate one. I don't know what we can do to change it.



I think a good first step is making sure that our flies are zipped.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 21, 2014)

Interesting read - and I remember a few years back when I walked by a playground and the sign said that unaccompanied adults without children weren't allowed in the playground. That sure is backwards compared to what I remember as a child!

I had a urgent shoot for a client a few years back at a theme park and called to get permission the day before, but had to go without waiting for clearance as a tropical storm was coming and I had to get the shots. I saw the main security guy as I was shooting and instead of waiting for trouble, I went up to him and talked to him. I explained what I was doing and he was really cool about it and he only said one thing, "Don't take pictures of other people's kids."

The sad reality is that there are a number of people out there selling fear to parents. There really aren't 50,000 sexual predators online at any time, nor are there 50 kids abducted in the US each day, or razor blades in apples on Halloween. These and many other false statistics are used to coerce parents into buying things they don't need and have the side effect of making parents completely paranoid. I work with the law enforcement groups who track predators and missing persons, so I'm not just saying this off the cuff.

The second reality is that a lens like the 300 f/2.8 is going to attract a lot of attention, good and bad. Most of the time, mine has been okay, usually someone annoying asking me lots of questions.

I think AcutancePhotography's advice of not escalating the situation is good, and it also helps to understand that most parents are convinced that there's a kidnapper or pervert lurking behind every tree. Putting yourself in their shoes for a moment and helping to reassure them is usually a good strategy.

It sounds like the OP did try to do some of that, so in some cases people are just jerks and you can only do what you can do. The people that you really need to be wary of are police and security. Working with that group as well, many of them are convinced that anyone taking photos of a public building and especially anything deemed "critical infrastructure" is up to no good. Cooperate, but know your rights.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 21, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> You can always wear a burka. They are fashionable, GREAT in the summer, and hide your face extremely well.



Well Burqas were useful, back in the early days of Islam, because if a woman were to cover herself completely. It meant that she was protected from all evil and such. Nowadays, most women usually wear the hijab, it just covers the hair and neck and it's usually used for fashion than protection. And then there are the shaylas (not sure how it's spelt in English) which only reveal the eyes and then the Burqa. Usually, most women who wear shaylas and burqas are forced to wear it by their husbands or someone else.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > You can always wear a burka. They are fashionable, GREAT in the summer, and hide your face extremely well.
> ...


Photos are just the tip of the iceberg. Every time you use a credit card or a points card, the data collected is being used to track you and your habits. Go look for something on the web and you start seeing targeted adds appearing... You and your actions are being tracked.... For example, I visited a Newfoundland Tourism site and now my CR feed is littered with adds for things to do and places to stay in Newfoundland....

Perhaps some people feel threatened and have the need to lash out.... and we are the only visible target....


----------



## unfocused (Apr 21, 2014)

Lots of good advice and comments here. 

I recall reading an article about Garry Winogrand, possibly the greatest street photographer ever. The key point was the Winogrand was relentless but never hesitated to make eye-contact and smile after he took a shot.

The point being that body language can be extremely important. If your body language says you belong there and you have a clear purpose in what you are doing, you can often deter persons from even questioning you. Of course it doesn't work for everyone, but it does work in a lot of cases. 

Although I have long since left the newspaper business, I find that if I put on my "news photographer persona" (friendly, but purposeful – it doesn't hurt to be carrying a shoulder bag with multiple lenses) few people question me. Unfortunately, many photographers feel a bit self-conscious with their cameras and that lack of confidence can easily be misread as "this person is up to something." 

In this case, the individual may have just been a jerk and nothing might have stopped him. But, I guess the main point is that, if you are photographing with a DSLR and any reasonably sized lens (or unreasonably sized) it's impossible for people not to notice you. Recognize that you will draw attention and just try to send out some body language that says: "This person belongs here."


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> You and your actions are being tracked.... For example, I visited a Newfoundland Tourism site and now my CR feed is littered with adds for things to do and places to stay in Newfoundland....


There are many ways to avoid this, but a simple one that at least prevents the ads from loading is AdBlock Plus, which is a free plug in for most browsers.


----------



## Joe M (Apr 21, 2014)

That's an irritating situation but unfortunately the best way to deal with it is to ignore the person. You owe him/her no explanation as to your presence there. Sadly, the irritation may bring up the urge to tell him/her off or worse but it's never worth it. Best thing to do is just shrug it off as part of being in public and realizing some people still don't know that once in public, there is no privacy. While I'm not a street photog, I do shoot on the street much of the time. I do my best to minimize having people in my shots in a recognizable way with the aim of giving my customers (brides and grooms) the impression they had the world to themselves, even when there are many tourists in the background (clone tools and the like also help). The problem is sometimes they want the Falls in the background so F2 isn't an option. I must say I've never had anyone approach me as it's obvious as to why I am there. That doesn't mean someone won't perceive he/she, his/her children is/are in the background even though they aren't and could approach me but it luckily hasn't been an issue. On the flipside, I've actually had to help brides from being photographed by the general public. It's funny how many people see a wedding and want to take shots. Some brides have actually been unnerved by it and I've had my assistants politely ask for privacy and so far it's gone well. I hope I haven't jixed myself.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 21, 2014)

Yesterday I was hitting some softballs to my daughter and three boys came and joined us, two teens and one elementary age kid. Their parents were there, but it was fun. It reminded me of the reality of the movies like the sandlot. 

It was actually more fun than coaching my little girls softball team. You hit one girl in the face with a softball... And then hit another the next practice... And I'm the bad guy.


----------



## surapon (Apr 21, 2014)

Dear Friends.
Sorry , I am not the Lawyer or an Attorney. It happen to me many times, And I have the copy of this page" The Photographer's Right" in my pocket and let the read, and I ask for they name and ask --If they are Lawyer or Attorney or not ?, and write their name on my notes book---After that No problem at all.
Enjoy.
Surapon.
PS, To all of my friends---Please copy and print " The Photographer's Right" and keep in your Camera bag, One day you will need them.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_law_rights.html


----------



## tbrand (Apr 21, 2014)

I have to wade in here. I understand the fellow might have seemed like a jerk, but I highly recommend you steer clear of aggravating someone asking something like that.

If I found myself in that situation I would take Don's advice and attempt to diffuse the situation and engage the person in a positive manner. There is nothing wrong with telling him what you were up to in the same way you did in this thread. Go right ahead and show him the photos if it helps.

The truth is you don't know what experience he might have had that drew him to you. You don't know each other and falling on what you perceive as your rights is often a quick way to aggravate a situation. Being friendly and honest will take you much farther.

As a professional I frequently have to explain myself to different people. A large lens like yours draws attention and people have a right to be curious. In work environments where security staff or other concerned parties ask what I may be up to, it is important to remain professional, make your intentions clear and show ID if needed. In a public place and you do have a right to snap photos if someone asks what you are up to or makes a comment like that I think it is important to keep the same thoughts in mind, even if you aren't a professional. Never assume that you have more of a right to something then someone... even when the law is on your side.

What I can see here is that in a way your feelings were hurt (no one wants to be labeled a creep... even when its really unjustified) and that your defenses went up. That's natural. Keep in mind that being defensive and not opening up leaves other parties to interpret you and your intentions in any way they see fit. Talking it out in a friendly manner reduces the chance of that happening.

I don't mean to be all preachy here; I really do think this will take you farther then being aggressive with someone.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

surapon said:


> Dear Friends.
> Sorry , I am not the Lawyer or an Attorney. It happen to me many times, And I have the copy of this page" The Photographer's Right" in my pocket and let the read, and I ask for they name and ask --If they are Lawyer or Attorney or not ?, and write their name on my notes book---After that No problem at all.
> Enjoy.
> Surapon.
> ...



*Love it! Here dude, read this! (That's OK, you can keep it!) That should keep them busy for a while!! LOL! 8)*


----------



## sdsr (Apr 21, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> It may be something else: if you take photos of public spaces, and people happen to be in those photos (e.g. museum) then it's OK. If you zoom in on individuals then it's not OK. Cell phones don't yet zoom well, and they're slow. I think people know that if you're in a cell phone photo it shouldn't be a surprise.



Some public spaces aren't quite as public as you may think. My office is a block from Independence Hall in Philadelphia and I like to take photos of and around it, partly because it's an attractive building, partly because it's a useful sort of thing to test lenses on thanks to all the fairly straight lines, bricks, symmetry etc. of buildings of that style and age, and, as it's a much-photographed tourist destination, photographers are expected and thus aren't the nuisance they can otherwise be in a city. I don't much like carrying around lots of camera equipment, so when I bought my Sony A7r a few months ago for several days in succession I visited it with different lenses and adapters to see how they behaved. On the fourth day, as I was leaving, a pair of federal police officers stopped me because guards outside Independence Hall thought I was taking photos of *them* (it's hard to take photos of that building that exclude them...). They were perfectly pleasant about it, and it probably helps that I don't look much like anyone's idea of a terrorist and was able to produce ID showing that I work for a federal appeals court, but still. At any rate, it's probably best not to make repeat visits to such destinations armed with a camera!

I also find it a bit odd that big cameras and big lenses, or even just clearly and openly taking a photo, look suspicious to so many. If you were trying to breach security or take a photo of children for nefarious purposes, wouldn't you do so furtively with as small a camera as possible?


----------



## tbrand (Apr 21, 2014)

surapon said:


> Dear Friends.
> Sorry , I am not the Lawyer or an Attorney. It happen to me many times, And I have the copy of this page" The Photographer's Right" in my pocket and let the read, and I ask for they name and ask --If they are Lawyer or Attorney or not ?, and write their name on my notes book---After that No problem at all.
> Enjoy.
> Surapon.
> ...



One other note, its all well and good to know your rights, but do yourself a favour and don't whip this out without explaining yourself first... and keep in mind showing this to a fellow like the one mentioned in the original post is pointless, aggressive and will only make things worse.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Apr 21, 2014)

Come on guys, it is common knowledge that a man with a lens above 135mm is trying to compensate for a tiny weeny and anything above 200mm, you can't have enough confidence to try and date a woman your age. Then, you are a perv and will take photos of kids to put on the internet.

Jokes apart, I've never been bullied, even photographing around parks. It is true that recently, I've mostly been with my son while I was there so this probably acts in my favor. As a side note, I just spent the last 2 days at the park with my son and some friends who also have young kids and I was amazed at how many people had DSLRs, often with superzooms and taking pictures of the playgrounds. Often, it was not easy to tell they had a kid of their own there but I guess everyone did like I did and assumed they had. Possibly, the wind is changing in our favor... (although a fast 300 has to look suspicious doesn't it???)


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 21, 2014)

I know this might sound strange but... what exactly do pervert photographers do with up close 300mm action shots of children playing in a park that could be so bad?

I mean... the kids are fully clothed. Right? They're just playing or walking or running or sitting. What's the difference in what the picture means in someone's camera compared to what the live in-person action in the park means, right in front of everyone?

Don't even get me started on what girls wear in pre-school, kindergarten, elementary all the way up through high school that their parents see no problem with buying and dressing them in because it's in style. Many parents dress their kids (girls) like barbie dolls with things like "Juicy" shown across their pre-pubescent butts and then complain that other people are perverts. If you have had kids in school in the last 20 years, you probably know what I mean. Some boys aren't much better, dressed like thugs and gangsters. This explains why many schools went back to mandatory uniforms to keep the peace and stop fights and gang related violence.

I don't know about everyone here but if I'm going to shoot up-close shots of people that might get me in trouble, it will be of attractive women. Not kids. And in this day and age that should be OK, right? I mean, if you go by what we all see in the media, advertising, clothing ads, movies, etc. Or maybe not. Sorry, I'm just confused. And not necc in a good way.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 21, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Friends.
> ...



LOL...so funny.

thanks surapon!


----------



## kdw75 (Apr 22, 2014)

What do people like this do about the cameras the government and businesses have up all over the place? Do they go make a scene every time their kids are in view of one of these?


----------



## IMG_0001 (Apr 22, 2014)

kdw75 said:


> What do people like this do about the cameras the government and businesses have up all over the place? Do they go make a scene every time their kids are in view of one of these?



Governments and businesses can't have ill intent, as opposed to that dangerous individual living next door...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 22, 2014)

tbrand said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Friends.
> ...



Whatever happened to good ole... no speeka da engliss.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 22, 2014)

Quote from: [email protected] on April 21, 2014, 11:44:14 AM
Remember that you have every right to shoot whatever is publicly available

And they have the right to insult and berate you for it; neither is civil. If you wish to claim every millimeter of the law, you must concede to others the same.

Orangutang, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is correct that I have the right to shoot whatever is publicly available. And onlookers (including police or security guards) do have the right civilly and politely to ask me about my activities. But they do not have the right to threaten, harass, detain, intimidate, or in general cause fear or disruption to me. If I as a reasonable person (and I do NOT mean those professionally-offended professional victims) am intimidated or made fearful by an insulting or berating onlooker, I have the right to be free of that intimidation. (The handout on the adkins website is quite clear on this point.)


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 22, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> > Quote from: [email protected] on April 21, 2014, 11:44:14 AM
> > Remember that you have every right to shoot whatever is publicly available
> 
> 
> ...



I said "insult and berate," not "threaten." Of course, exercise of free speech rights does not exempt anyone from other applicable laws. But then, engaging in photography doesn't exempt anyone from other applicable laws either.

The US Supreme Court gives wide latitude to free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

In short, someone is legally entitled to come up to you and call you all manner of nasty names for any reason, or for no reason. So long as it doesn't cross that magic, legal line, it's "free speech."

If you want to stand on the law as written and decided by the courts, it applies both ways. If you want to celebrate your own right to engage in activities that some people would find offensive and intrusive, you should be prepared to celebrate the rights of others to engage in activities that you find offensive. My argument, however, is an ethical argument, not legal.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nealboortz210988.html


----------



## johnb (Apr 22, 2014)

So far I haven't had anything like the unpleasant experience that the OP reported. I suspect I'd try and make sure that my actions were unlikely to be misinterpreted and, if they were, I'd go for a conciliatory approach.

This is a fascinating discussion that has raised a number of issues and thrown up a number of questions. Without wishing to hijack the thread, I would be grateful for an answer to one specific one.

I'm in the UK. We have, at least, two different legal systems in operation here (English/Welsh and Scottish - I haven't a clue how things work in Northern Ireland). We don't have a written constitution and formal rights arising from it. The English/Welsh system is based on Common Law, a mishmash of legal precedents and common sense.

People over here got very jumpy about public space photography after the bombings in London in July 2005. It certainly wouldn't have been wise to spend a lot of time trying to photograph a railway station or an airport, say, in the immediate aftermath of that. In February 2009 Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act came into force and appeared to open the door to making it an offence to take pictures of members of the police. The BBC covered this at the time and the police in London tried to enforce this interpretation on at least one well reported occasion, despite earlier assurances in Parliament that this wouldn't happen. References have been made to US First Amendment Rights and EU rulings in follow up debates but neither apply directly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-photographing-police.html

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/31/do-we-have-right-to-film-police

Does anyone on this forum know what the current state of play is in the UK when it comes to photographing the police in a public place?


----------



## IMG_0001 (Apr 22, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I know this might sound strange but... what exactly do pervert photographers do with up close 300mm action shots of children playing in a park that could be so bad?
> 
> I mean... the kids are fully clothed. Right? They're just playing or walking or running or sitting. What's the difference in what the picture means in someone's camera compared to what the live in-person action in the park means, right in front of everyone?
> ...



Probably it is not about the pictures as such, but about a fear of a possibility of stalking kids and of the photographer documenting the habits of a child/family in preparation for the real crime. However, I doubt that there is that much preparation in most case of child abduction. I feel like these are more often than not performed on impulse. Mind you, I'm no specialist...



RustyTheGeek said:


> ...
> Don't even get me started on what girls wear in pre-school, kindergarten, elementary all the way up through high school that their parents see no problem with buying and dressing them in because it's in style. Many parents dress their kids (girls) like barbie dolls with things like "Juicy" shown across their pre-pubescent butts and then complain that other people are perverts. If you have had kids in school in the last 20 years, you probably know what I mean. Some boys aren't much better, dressed like thugs and gangsters. This explains why many schools went back to mandatory uniforms to keep the peace and stop fights and gang related violence.
> 
> I don't know about everyone here but if I'm going to shoot up-close shots of people that might get me in trouble, it will be of attractive women. Not kids. And in this day and age that should be OK, right? I mean, if you go by what we all see in the media, advertising, clothing ads, movies, etc. Or maybe not. Sorry, I'm just confused. And not necc in a good way.



Well, I concede that it is a common sight that young girls and boys are dressed in ways that I found to be questionable. However, I don't think 'this day and age', 'the media, advertising,...' or the way a woman (lightly) dresses herself are decent motivations or excuses to photograph that 'attractive woman'. Do women get raped (or children abducted) because of the way they dress? Of course not. Well, I think a similar line of thought should prevail here.

AIB: It's Your Fault


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 22, 2014)

Parents are being conditioned by our news media to think that any male is a potential danger. It seems not a potential danger but a probable danger. Despite the statistics that show that children are more likely to be molested by family members, friends of the family, and people in "trusted" positions (clergy, teachers, coaches, camp councilers, boy/girl scout people...) than by total strangers. 

Not saying that total strangers are not involved in child molestation, they are, but not to the extent being reported. Parents need to understand that most adults are not potential child molesters. It was one of the hardest things for me to learn as a parent/grandparent. You have to be alert, but not paranoid.

Like most issues pertaining to photography, it is not Black and White ;D

If someone is exclusively taking pictures of little girls on swings/slides that is different from someone taking general pictures of a playground. The problem is that an observer will be unable to tell the difference. The only way to tell is to look at the pictures, which is starting to infringe on the personal rights of the photographer.

Photographers have the same rights as other people. 

Unfortunately, I have knuckled-down to society and I avoid taking pictures that have other people's children in it. Once I was out in the field taking pictures of butterflies and three young girls entered the same field I was in.

What did I do? I quietly and quickly left. Being an older man, in the same isolated field as three strange girls is too much of a risk. Did I like it? no. Was it fair to me? no. But, I thought, and still think, it was the prudent thing to do.

Nothing is harder to prove than proving that you did NOT try to molest a little girl. And let's be honest, that whole innocent until proven guilty does not apply to old men when young girls are involved. A simple accusation is often enough. 

A tog friend of mine told me a story (whether it is true or not I dunno). In England, where he lives, there were instances of a group of women with children asking a photographer to take pictures of their kids playing. They would then extort money from the photographer or claim that he was attempting to molest them. Yikes!

Talk about easy money, I am sure any photographer dumb enough to take pictures of strange kids without some witnesses would pay a lot.

So any talk about what rights photographers have or don't have is only part of the story. Photographers have to be careful, and to be sexist about it, male photographers have to be extra careful. If you are an old man. Forget it. It seems I am guilty even before being accused. 

It is not right, it is not fair. I wish it were not this way. But no one ever said that life is fair or nice.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 23, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Parents are being conditioned by our news media to think that any male is a potential danger. It seems not a potential danger but a probable danger. Despite the statistics that show that children are more likely to be molested by family members, friends of the family, and people in "trusted" positions (clergy, teachers, coaches, camp councilers, boy/girl scout people...) than by total strangers.
> 
> Not saying that total strangers are not involved in child molestation, they are, but not to the extent being reported. Parents need to understand that most adults are not potential child molesters. It was one of the hardest things for me to learn as a parent/grandparent. You have to be alert, but not paranoid.
> 
> ...



You make good points....and you're right, a simple accusation can have terrible consequences.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 23, 2014)

johnb said:


> So far I haven't had anything like the unpleasant experience that the OP reported. I suspect I'd try and make sure that my actions were unlikely to be misinterpreted and, if they were, I'd go for a conciliatory approach.
> 
> This is a fascinating discussion that has raised a number of issues and thrown up a number of questions. Without wishing to hijack the thread, I would be grateful for an answer to one specific one.
> 
> ...



I am from the UK, and I am pretty sure that in the letter of the Law it is not against the law to photograph a police officer in a public place. However, the police _detest_ being photographed, let alone filmed. There have been any number of instances of gross police misconduct, not just in the UK, where a mobile phone video has turned up, often first posted on the web, which shows the police's version of the events to be completely false. 

Unfortunately now the growing number of Terrorism Acts that are being passed and amended are interpreted by much of the police in the UK in such a way as to be to their advantage in any number of cases which clearly, from the outset, had nothing at all to do with terrorism. 

Believe it or not a heckler at one of the Labour Party conferences, an old man in fact, was arrested under the Terrorism Act and removed. The police were publicly ridiculed by the press, but then of course it is a free press that keeps a country free, and having a good line on suppressing of photography is definitely a worrying move in the wrong direction.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 23, 2014)

Especially when the police have no problems photographing/recording what they do. But when someone independent of the police force photographs/records the police in action, this is somehow wrong in the eyes of the police?

As long as the photographer is not interfeering with what the police need to do, I feel that society can only benefit by having independant records of what the police are doing. The police are in a position where they can have the most influence on a citizen's rights. With this authority comes the need for oversight to prevent abuse. We can't have oversight if the police can "accidently" turn off their cameras or "accidently" lose data files so that only their side is recorded. 

To turn a phrase back on the police: "If the police are not doing anything wrong, why should they be concerned with being recorded when in a public place?"

That's what they tell us, right?
There are gooses and ganders.


----------



## TeenTog (Apr 26, 2014)

While jdramirez brings up some good points, there are a couple of things he mentions that I think could potentially cause problems. I would think that the method of grace and kindness should be the first one used, rather than starting off by being hostile or confrontational. I'm pretty sure that responding to criticism or hostility with such statements as "I have the right to do this," "F*ck off" or other self-righteous, pretentious phrases is a bad way to handle the situation."

Meeting hostility with hostility will only escalate the confrontation, and by being on edge or immediately pissed off will only increase the suspicion of an already suspicious individual. I agree with the idea of not having to justify your actions or prove yourself, but I look at that as: you aren't required to prove yourself, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to show someone that you aren't a pedophile or "spy." 

Just be congenial and good natured, offer to show them your photos, hand them your business card, and try to appear as friendly and non suspicious as possible. doing that should put your average concerned parent at ease. If doing that doesn't work, chances are you're dealing with someone that has severe trust issues and won't be satisfied with a simple response. In that case, bringing out the serious face and legal lingo or offering to let the cops handle it would be necessary. 

Just my opinion. But my philosophy is to always treat people with respect and maintain integrity, even when dealing with a "moron." Remember that one bad experience with a photographer could lead to that person mistrusting all photographers, further breeding mistrust and suspicion among the public.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 26, 2014)

TeenTog said:


> While jdramirez brings up some good points, .



I was thinking about this earlier... And I was thinking that you could go the other direction and be super pervy and say, I'm not here for the kids, but the naked dogs... oh yeah... I have to do this since the state took away all my pets.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> TeenTog said:
> 
> 
> > While jdramirez brings up some good points, .
> ...



JD...I've read many of your posts that fall along a similar theme as to the one above and I've concluded that you either:

1. love a little weed/grass/mary jane....?
or 
2. love a little jack daniels or john daniels(credit "scent of a woman") 
or
both of course...why discriminate. 

: 8)  ;D  : ;D ;D ;D ;D

peace


----------



## distant.star (Apr 26, 2014)

TeenTog said:


> Remember that one bad experience with a photographer could lead to that person mistrusting all photographers, further breeding mistrust and suspicion among the public.



Photographers ARE the public. Holding a camera does not set one apart from the mass of humanity.

The mere fact of my taking pictures in public does not make me a special representative of the photographer class so that my every act speaks for "photographers" and may enhance or taint the perception of photographers in the world.

I see many people wearing crosses as religious symbol -- am I to judge a whole religion by what one of them does?


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 26, 2014)

I'm actually stone sober... So yeah... I'm a little off kilter... but the wife occasionally laughs.



Northstar said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > TeenTog said:
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm a little off kilter


That's what makes it all worth it.



> but the wife occasionally laughs.



And that's what makes it possible.

;D


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 26, 2014)

distant.star said:


> The mere fact of my taking pictures in public does not make me a special representative of the photographer class so that my every act speaks for "photographers" and may enhance or taint the perception of photographers in the world.



Sites such as these (of which there are many)

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
http://youarenotaphotographer.com/

may be funny the first time you look through them, but if you think about the subjects as real people with lives, friends, etc, it becomes clear that we all open ourselves up to humiliation if we happen to pick our noses or pull on our shorts absentmindedly, or even dress badly one day.

So yes, actually: whether it's fair or not, everyone with a camera in public is a representative of "photographers."




> I see many people wearing crosses as religious symbol -- am I to judge a whole religion by what one of them does?


It's an "in-group" vs. "out-group" thing: *my *beliefs should never be impugned based on a few bad apples, but *yours*? Well, it's just proof of what we should expect from *your kind!*


----------



## Northstar (Apr 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm actually stone sober... So yeah... I'm a little off kilter... but the wife occasionally laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some of your material is pretty damn funny


----------



## TeenTog (Apr 26, 2014)

> Photographers ARE the public. Holding a camera does not set one apart from the mass of humanity



Sorry, bad word choice on my part. What I meant by public is the people that don't go to the dog park with very expensive, "professional" equipment. I agree that holding a camera doesn't set us apart from humanity completely, but by going into public with a big white and making pictures of things near people, you are certainly in a way different from those around you, and representing the rest of our kind, per say. Photography is an art with a community, is it not?

For example, the Hobby Lobby near my house has pretty poor customer service. I consistently have bad experiences there. Now, if I were to go to a different location, I might expect the employees there to be rude. I would expect that because I automatically, if unconsciously, associate Hobby Lobby employees with bad customer service all because of my bad experience at one location. It's neither good nor fair to the employees, but It takes several good experiences with a few members of a group to erase a single bad experience. 

As to your crucifix comment: same deal. Just because it's not fair to judge an individual and apply it to the group does not mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 26, 2014)

distant.star said:


> I see many people wearing crosses as religious symbol -- am I to judge a whole religion by what one of them does?



yes


----------

