Pixiq

Its quite simple, if you take pictures of children, perverts might look at them. If you take pictures of women, perverts might look at them. If you take pictures of men, perverts might look at them. If you take pictures of grandmothers in wheelchairs, perverts might look at them. If you take pictures of exotic cars perverts might look at them...

"Stranger Danger" run amuck.

The statistics show that kids are far more likely to be diddled by a family member, not by a random person on the street.

I was in New York's Union Square Park recently and witnessed something similar. I myself wasn't photographing the children's play area, but I was directly adjacent to it photographing some great trees. It was a very cool area, very photo worthy, but I heard some of the park guards shoo away photographers from that area because of "the children".

I executed the appropriate eye roll, but simply wasn't in the mood for that type of conversation that day. Sorry for not choosing to fight the good fight that day, Carlos!

i usually just use a long lens and try not to move the bushes i'm hiding in very much...

I generally don't because I figure it's not worth the hassle. Even if I don't get hassled at the time I take the photo, I'l catch hell if I post it online. Never mind that the kid isn't identified and there's no way in hell for some creep to find that kid, people will accuse me of all sorts of blatantly false crap.

I have a picture of a little girl in her swimsuit playing with a fountain at Battery Park in NYC. It's a cute shot and that's why I took it. It's a playful moment of life in the city.

I think the same people that complain about a shot like that are the measurbators who examine every pixel of a photo to tell you that your white balance is off, or some other nonsense that has nothing to do with the photo.

We're raising a nation of cowards and idiots.

The innocent and real expressions on children's faces has always played in major role in " Kodak Moments."

Unfortunately we now live in a sick society where anything can be abused.

I'm just gratefull Norman Rockwell isn't around any longer to deal with today's hangups. By today's standards, he might be considered a perv by many.

I'm sure the guards didn't hassle parents taking photos of their children even though images of other kids could easily end up in the frame. If parents can take photos, so can anyone else. I know that some people might find it creepy, but that doesn't negate the right to shoot in the first place. If a parent asked me to stop shooting their own kid, I probably would stop, but if I'm just shooting images like the one that accompanies this article, I wouldn't feel obligated to stop.

Best anonymous quote from the blog...
"There is no expectation of privacy in a public space. If you want to avoid having the scary box steal your soul, stay home and build a higher fence."

Amen. And the picture at the blog... You couldn't recognize anyone in it in the first place.

I usually avoided pictures of children, if their parents weren't identifiable, but if the photo op was there, I shot first and sought permission after. Working for a daily at the time, I needed permission anyway to print names of children. Most parents were cool, anxious to be able to brag that their "baby" was in the local paper.

There is certainly nothing illegal about it but I would certainly ask permission from the parents as a matter of courtesy and respect. It reminds me of that exchange in the Big Lebowski:

WAITRESS: Excuse me sir, could you please keep your voices down, this is a family restaurant.
WALTER: Oh, please dear! For your information: the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!
DUDE: Come on Walter, this is not a First Amendment thing man.

That said, I do understand the frustration of hobbyist photographers who want to snap a spur-of-the-moment picture. And I also agree that parents are waaaayyyyy too paranoid these days.

As a parent of two young kids, I refrain from taking pictures of others' kids. If I saw someone standing around taking photos of my kids in bathing suits, I would ask them what they were doing. Probably it's fine but I don't want some creep taking photos of my kids.

I know you have every right to take photos of kids in public places, but sometimes you should not be exercising every right you have to the exclusion of others.

Sure, you have the right to take photos of my kids when they are in a public spot. I have the right to enjoy the park with my kids. There can be a collision there.

I like taking photos of kids, they look so natural and interesting. It's a totally "cool" thing to do. I've been hassled by cops and others over it but you aren't breaking any laws.

Our country is so totally bizarre with 'stranger danger' that it's enough to make you sick. I'm really happy that John Walsh has finally lost his pulpit. His 'crusade' was all about the guilt he feels everyday over his son being abducted. But Adam Walsh wasn't abducted and John Walsh's guilt isn't because strangers are dangerous. It's because Adam Walsh was abandoned and left alone on a line by his mother. If Adam had not been left alone he would not have been abducted, plain and simple. John Walsh transfers that guilt onto others and blames strangers because it's less painful than accepting what happened.

I'm not saying that there aren't a few dangerous strangers in the world because there are but that they are less than .1% of the population. The vast majority of strangers aren't dangerous and they are only strangers till you meet them.

When I travel in Mexico the attitude is very different. I stop at schools when the children are out for play time and ride up to them on my motorcycle. They all want to shake your hand and say hola. These are some of my best memories of traveling in Mexico. It is a treat for both the children and myself.

I have a friend that migrated from Bolivia with her family. Her father is one of the gentlest men I have ever met. She tells a story of when they first arrived and were shopping in a large store. They came upon a lost little girl of about 3 years old. Her father, about 60 years old at the time, did what he would have done in Bolivia and picked up the young girl to comfort her and protect her while they searched for the mother or father. When they finally found the mother there were not only some ugly looks but also some ugly comments by both the mother and some of the store employees.

This is currently one of the things wrong with our country. I'd argue that when everyone is looking out for all children and protecting them as in the above example they are safer than what we currently have when good people are concerned about being accused of something if they get involved. This is because there are just so many more good people in the world than sick people.

I also think that anyone that thinks it's creepy to take a photo of a child is a creep.

From the Frog Ponds Facebook page.

The Boston Common Frog Pond
Visitors at any public space have the right to take photographs and that is of course true at the Frog Pond. Please accept our apologies that one of our staff members aired on the side of over protection.
6 minutes ago · Like ·

I left the following comment on their Facebook (which I suggest everybody do), but it will likely be deleted.

Why is the Frog Pond staff confronting photographers and telling them that they can't take pictures because there are kids around? It's a public park and people can photograph whatever they want, including children. I suggest your train your staff regarding the law and a person's First Amendment right to take pictures in public.

Anyone in the Boston area up for flash mobbing the frog pond?

This is how I feel about the whole photography in public controversy.

Your constitutional right to privacy is extremely limited. My constitutional right to photograph you is not. In other words, if you, or your kids, are in a public place I will photograph you or them if I want to. I don't care if you're in your own yard, or in your house. If I can legally take a photo of you I will if I choose. I don't care if it upsets you. You have no constitutional right to not be upset, but I do have the constitutional right to photograph you. Get over it!!!

Rights can be eroded at both ends as demonstrated here. The problem at the end of authority is obvious. When photographers shy away from shooting something because of the perception of others then it gives credence to those that look to take our rights away.

When photographers tell others that they won't make images of children then they are feeding into the frenzy. If that continues then in time the right to take pictures of children will disappear and then we have to wonder where it will stop.

To "Discarted" I love the idea of a Flash mob taking pictures of Frog Pond & if anyone's interested lets take some of the MBTA underground train stops before they rename the stops & put corporate logos on them.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/12004816389559/mbta-may-...

Please let me know if anyone is interested...

the frog pond facebook page now has a status update stating "Visitors at any public space have the right to take photographs and that is of course true at the Frog Pond. Please accept our apologies that one of our staff members aired on the side of overprotection."

That would be a great smartphone advertisement, an employee at this park harassing a photographer, and the photographer takes out their phone, and shows the person the facebook status update showing that yes, photography is allowed, and heck, might as well go on to posting on the wall that "'insert employee's name here' is harassing them while taking photos, right now, regardless of the policy, and then even attach a video of the encounter."

I've never gone out to just photograph kids, but they are everywhere and sorry helicopter parents, if they are where I'm shooting they are getting photographed. Don't like it, keep them home.

Yes its legal to take pictures of children in a public space when they have no expectation of privacy. Parents are in many cases hysterical nuts. If you give parents the creeps its legal for them to exercise free speech and call you a perv. ITs all legal. If that offends you tough. You do not have a right,to not to be offended in a free society. Its a two way street. IF you feel strongly about it by all means exercise your rights. Don't get your panties in bunch when others exercise theirs. Now some of you want to go make a big deal over it and in the end it will somehow end up making a play pond for kids less free.
IT may be legal but is it moral. That depends on the situation ,or Like in the case of porn. You know it when you see it. If I saw a guy with a big expensive camera. Taking shots I would be far less suspicious, then some guy with a cell phone. A professional or a serious amateur photographer would have no problem engaging in conversation with a parent and would be willing to show them what shots they took. That is what a Decent human being would do, when it involves a child who does not comprehend his rights. ITS up to decent people to protect them.
Most of you would say A cop is breaking the law when he interviews a child without council or a parent. It may not be Illegal to take photos but the same moral ground is bypassed when a child is photographed in a swim area. I am not talking about the street or a playground. A swim Area. Any adult should be able to comprehend the difference. It may not be illegal but without common sense and common respect then you have become nothing more then a Cop enforcing the letter of the law even when it is immoral.

"I am not talking about the street or a playground. A swim Area. Any adult should be able to comprehend the difference."

I'm an adult, and a parent. I don't comprehend the difference to which you're referring. A kid can wear a swimsuit while walking down the sidewalk. A kid can wear a shirt and shorts in the pool. A kid can wear a swimsuit in a fountain, as in the artistic photo which tops this page.

If you were to say "I am not talking about a playground, I'm talking about a swimsuit changing area, any adult should be able to comprehend the difference" then I would agree with you. But there's no more expectation of privacy in a public swim area than in a public park, in my opinion.

You have right to your opinion so do parents who will respond to you when they see a adult at swim park without children of there own taking photos of other peoples kids. YOU will get hassled. The simple fact of the matter is that most parents MOST parents would find you Creepy. IF you hang out in railroad tracks you are going to get hit by a train. Those parents will be excersising there Constitutional rights to call you a perv standing in your shot. That is there right.You might think your an artist. Please dont bitch moan and complain about it when they do. I have no doubt that it would be completely constitutional for a town to make it illegal to take pictures in a swim area, if you have no kids of your own there. The supreme court would back that up as a matter of public safety out weighing the right of free speech. Then in your zeal to be right the rights of everyone will be again limited.