Candid Photos of Other's Kids on Internet

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 12, 2005.

  1. I think I know the answer, and I surely know how some persons are going to
    clamor in on this. I am simply wanting clarification: if I take a candid of
    another's child and post it to a website like Pbase, as long as it's not
    pornographic or libelous in nature etc, do I not have every right to do this
    even without the parent's permission?

    At question is a candid photo I took a few days ago of someone's child
    sleeping on his dad's shoulder really cute. I just snapped the photo quietly
    and never said a word, so it's not being challenged, but anyway that's what
    I did. Here is that photo:

    http://i.pbase.com/v3/09/494709/1/45962627.img_4159_rjcrz.jpg

    Again nothing is being challenged here, but I am curious what the law is in
    public places. I am thinking it's just like anything else--as there is no
    expectation of privacy here, I can't be legally challenged, especially
    seeing as this is not anything at all pornographic or whatever.

    Tips? And yes, I know--certain of you parents reading this are going to
    chime in with "if you did that to my child and didn't ask I'd be furious." I
    know how some of you are, and no I am NOT trolling and not trying to encite
    some flames. I am just asking about the laws--and yes, if any of you
    "street" photographers want to chime in with how you handle situations like
    this that's fine.

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:poGAe.71054$go.61187@fed1read05...
    >I think I know the answer, and I surely know how some persons are going to
    >clamor in on this. I am simply wanting clarification: if I take a candid of
    >another's child and post it to a website like Pbase, as long as it's not
    >pornographic or libelous in nature etc, do I not have every right to do
    >this even without the parent's permission?
    >
    > At question is a candid photo I took a few days ago of someone's child
    > sleeping on his dad's shoulder really cute. I just snapped the photo
    > quietly and never said a word, so it's not being challenged, but anyway
    > that's what I did. Here is that photo:
    >
    > http://i.pbase.com/v3/09/494709/1/45962627.img_4159_rjcrz.jpg
    >
    > Again nothing is being challenged here, but I am curious what the law is
    > in public places. I am thinking it's just like anything else--as there is
    > no expectation of privacy here, I can't be legally challenged, especially
    > seeing as this is not anything at all pornographic or whatever.
    >
    > Tips? And yes, I know--certain of you parents reading this are going to
    > chime in with "if you did that to my child and didn't ask I'd be furious."
    > I know how some of you are, and no I am NOT trolling and not trying to
    > encite some flames. I am just asking about the laws--and yes, if any of
    > you "street" photographers want to chime in with how you handle situations
    > like this that's fine.
    >
    > LRH


    Unless you are making money from it, it's legal.
    Think about it. Paparazzi can get away with pictures of Michael Jackson's
    kids, and there is no question that he didn't want them photographed.
    If it was unlawful to post pictures, then everyone who posts images of their
    vacations, etc., would have to get dozens of strangers' permission if they
    happened to be in any portion of an image their family members were in.
     
    Mark², Jul 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Guest

    , Jul 12, 2005
    #3
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:NxGAe.8425$Eo.5942@fed1read04...
    >
    > "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    > news:poGAe.71054$go.61187@fed1read05...
    >>I think I know the answer, and I surely know how some persons are going to
    >>clamor in on this. I am simply wanting clarification: if I take a candid
    >>of another's child and post it to a website like Pbase, as long as it's
    >>not pornographic or libelous in nature etc, do I not have every right to
    >>do this even without the parent's permission?
    >>
    >> At question is a candid photo I took a few days ago of someone's child
    >> sleeping on his dad's shoulder really cute. I just snapped the photo
    >> quietly and never said a word, so it's not being challenged, but anyway
    >> that's what I did. Here is that photo:
    >>
    >> http://i.pbase.com/v3/09/494709/1/45962627.img_4159_rjcrz.jpg
    >>
    >> Again nothing is being challenged here, but I am curious what the law is
    >> in public places. I am thinking it's just like anything else--as there is
    >> no expectation of privacy here, I can't be legally challenged, especially
    >> seeing as this is not anything at all pornographic or whatever.
    >>
    >> Tips? And yes, I know--certain of you parents reading this are going to
    >> chime in with "if you did that to my child and didn't ask I'd be
    >> furious." I know how some of you are, and no I am NOT trolling and not
    >> trying to encite some flames. I am just asking about the laws--and yes,
    >> if any of you "street" photographers want to chime in with how you handle
    >> situations like this that's fine.
    >>
    >> LRH

    >
    > Unless you are making money from it, it's legal.
    > Think about it. Paparazzi can get away with pictures of Michael Jackson's
    > kids, and there is no question that he didn't want them photographed.
    > If it was unlawful to post pictures, then everyone who posts images of
    > their vacations, etc., would have to get dozens of strangers' permission
    > if they happened to be in any portion of an image their family members
    > were in.


    For that matter...making money from it clearly isn't the cut and dry issue
    either...thinking of paparazzi...who make thousands from image sales to
    gossip mags.
     
    Mark², Jul 12, 2005
    #4
  5. The basics have been covered...but to recap...

    You can shoot as a photojournalist, an artist, or as a commercial
    photographer and the rules are different for each.

    The Constitution protects journalists encluding photojournalists and the
    Supremes have said that if you collect information to pass on to the public
    you may be considered the press...that includes web sites.

    Artists are also very free to do with their work as they please.

    As a commercial photographer things are toughter. The people who pay you
    have a say in what you do with the images. The subject of the photograph has
    a say unless a release is signed. People in the background are a tough
    question. If you ask them to do anything then you should get a release for
    them too. If they are just people doing what they were doing...no release is
    necessary.

    Lawyers try to mess this system up and its cheaper to buy a pad of releases
    than to hire a lawyer so you may want to play it safe.
     
    Gene Palmiter, Jul 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Paul Bartram wrote:
    >
    > Be warned, there are a lot of bored journalists out there searching
    > for that elusive front page by-line...


    All too often these days, journalists who think they are shining a light
    into the corrupt underbelly of society end up merely bathing themselves
    in the glow...

    Bob ^,,^
     
    Bob Harrington, Jul 12, 2005
    #6
  7. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
    > I think I know the answer, and I surely know how some persons are going to
    > clamor in on this. I am simply wanting clarification: if I take a candid of
    > another's child and post it to a website like Pbase, as long as it's not
    > pornographic or libelous in nature etc, do I not have every right to do this
    > even without the parent's permission?
    >
    > At question is a candid photo I took a few days ago of someone's child
    > sleeping on his dad's shoulder really cute. I just snapped the photo quietly
    > and never said a word, so it's not being challenged, but anyway that's what
    > I did. Here is that photo:
    >
    > http://i.pbase.com/v3/09/494709/1/45962627.img_4159_rjcrz.jpg
    >
    > Again nothing is being challenged here, but I am curious what the law is in
    > public places. I am thinking it's just like anything else--as there is no
    > expectation of privacy here, I can't be legally challenged, especially
    > seeing as this is not anything at all pornographic or whatever.
    >
    > Tips? And yes, I know--certain of you parents reading this are going to
    > chime in with "if you did that to my child and didn't ask I'd be furious." I
    > know how some of you are, and no I am NOT trolling and not trying to encite
    > some flames. I am just asking about the laws--and yes, if any of you
    > "street" photographers want to chime in with how you handle situations like
    > this that's fine.
    >
    > LRH
    >
    >

    I believe you are safe as long as you don't make money from the picture.
    If you do, you will need their permission to use it.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 12, 2005
    #7
  8. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:NxGAe.8425$Eo.5942@fed1read04...
    >
    >>"Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    >>news:poGAe.71054$go.61187@fed1read05...
    >>
    >>>I think I know the answer, and I surely know how some persons are going to
    >>>clamor in on this. I am simply wanting clarification: if I take a candid
    >>>of another's child and post it to a website like Pbase, as long as it's
    >>>not pornographic or libelous in nature etc, do I not have every right to
    >>>do this even without the parent's permission?
    >>>
    >>>At question is a candid photo I took a few days ago of someone's child
    >>>sleeping on his dad's shoulder really cute. I just snapped the photo
    >>>quietly and never said a word, so it's not being challenged, but anyway
    >>>that's what I did. Here is that photo:
    >>>
    >>>http://i.pbase.com/v3/09/494709/1/45962627.img_4159_rjcrz.jpg
    >>>
    >>>Again nothing is being challenged here, but I am curious what the law is
    >>>in public places. I am thinking it's just like anything else--as there is
    >>>no expectation of privacy here, I can't be legally challenged, especially
    >>>seeing as this is not anything at all pornographic or whatever.
    >>>
    >>>Tips? And yes, I know--certain of you parents reading this are going to
    >>>chime in with "if you did that to my child and didn't ask I'd be
    >>>furious." I know how some of you are, and no I am NOT trolling and not
    >>>trying to encite some flames. I am just asking about the laws--and yes,
    >>>if any of you "street" photographers want to chime in with how you handle
    >>>situations like this that's fine.
    >>>
    >>>LRH

    >>
    >>Unless you are making money from it, it's legal.
    >>Think about it. Paparazzi can get away with pictures of Michael Jackson's
    >>kids, and there is no question that he didn't want them photographed.
    >>If it was unlawful to post pictures, then everyone who posts images of
    >>their vacations, etc., would have to get dozens of strangers' permission
    >>if they happened to be in any portion of an image their family members
    >>were in.

    >
    >
    > For that matter...making money from it clearly isn't the cut and dry issue
    > either...thinking of paparazzi...who make thousands from image sales to
    > gossip mags.
    >
    >

    Celebrities are a special case.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:SZLAe.40370$...
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >> news:NxGAe.8425$Eo.5942@fed1read04...
    >>
    >>>"Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:poGAe.71054$go.61187@fed1read05...
    >>>
    >>>>I think I know the answer, and I surely know how some persons are going
    >>>>to clamor in on this. I am simply wanting clarification: if I take a
    >>>>candid of another's child and post it to a website like Pbase, as long
    >>>>as it's not pornographic or libelous in nature etc, do I not have every
    >>>>right to do this even without the parent's permission?
    >>>>
    >>>>At question is a candid photo I took a few days ago of someone's child
    >>>>sleeping on his dad's shoulder really cute. I just snapped the photo
    >>>>quietly and never said a word, so it's not being challenged, but anyway
    >>>>that's what I did. Here is that photo:
    >>>>
    >>>>http://i.pbase.com/v3/09/494709/1/45962627.img_4159_rjcrz.jpg
    >>>>
    >>>>Again nothing is being challenged here, but I am curious what the law is
    >>>>in public places. I am thinking it's just like anything else--as there
    >>>>is no expectation of privacy here, I can't be legally challenged,
    >>>>especially seeing as this is not anything at all pornographic or
    >>>>whatever.
    >>>>
    >>>>Tips? And yes, I know--certain of you parents reading this are going to
    >>>>chime in with "if you did that to my child and didn't ask I'd be
    >>>>furious." I know how some of you are, and no I am NOT trolling and not
    >>>>trying to encite some flames. I am just asking about the laws--and yes,
    >>>>if any of you "street" photographers want to chime in with how you
    >>>>handle situations like this that's fine.
    >>>>
    >>>>LRH
    >>>
    >>>Unless you are making money from it, it's legal.
    >>>Think about it. Paparazzi can get away with pictures of Michael
    >>>Jackson's kids, and there is no question that he didn't want them
    >>>photographed.
    >>>If it was unlawful to post pictures, then everyone who posts images of
    >>>their vacations, etc., would have to get dozens of strangers' permission
    >>>if they happened to be in any portion of an image their family members
    >>>were in.

    >>
    >>
    >> For that matter...making money from it clearly isn't the cut and dry
    >> issue either...thinking of paparazzi...who make thousands from image
    >> sales to gossip mags.

    > Celebrities are a special case.


    Their obscure children aren't celebs though.
    For example...the recent photos of Brad Pitt and what's-her-name's kids on
    private property...
     
    Mark², Jul 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:43:16 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    >Their obscure children aren't celebs though.
    >For example...the recent photos of Brad Pitt and what's-her-name's kids on
    >private property...


    You're right, the kids themselves aren't celebs.
    But their *connection* to a celebrity makes them fair game, especially
    when they are in the photo with the celeb.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 12, 2005
    #10
  11. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 11 Jul 2005 20:11:58 -0700, ""
    <> wrote:

    >IN AMERICA: if you took the photo in a public place, you're free to
    >publish it.


    As usual, such broad statements are only partly right.
    You're free to publish it, subject to many laws that govern such
    publishing.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Bob,
    Nicely put! That's sort of like wrestling with a pig...you both get
    dirty only the pig enjoys it. :)
    Paul

    Bob Harrington wrote:
    > Paul Bartram wrote:
    >
    >>Be warned, there are a lot of bored journalists out there searching
    >>for that elusive front page by-line...

    >
    >
    > All too often these days, journalists who think they are shining a light
    > into the corrupt underbelly of society end up merely bathing themselves
    > in the glow...
    >
    > Bob ^,,^
    >
    >
     
    Paul Schilter, Jul 12, 2005
    #12
  13. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:43:16 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >>Their obscure children aren't celebs though.
    >>For example...the recent photos of Brad Pitt and what's-her-name's kids on
    >>private property...

    >
    > You're right, the kids themselves aren't celebs.
    > But their *connection* to a celebrity makes them fair game, especially
    > when they are in the photo with the celeb.


    Is that legally described somewhere? -Or just sorf ot the way things
    are...?
     
    Mark², Jul 12, 2005
    #13
  14. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:56:12 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    >
    >"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:43:16 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    >> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Their obscure children aren't celebs though.
    >>>For example...the recent photos of Brad Pitt and what's-her-name's kids on
    >>>private property...

    >>
    >> You're right, the kids themselves aren't celebs.
    >> But their *connection* to a celebrity makes them fair game, especially
    >> when they are in the photo with the celeb.

    >
    >Is that legally described somewhere? -Or just sorf ot the way things
    >are...?
    >

    Probably a little of both.
    The law is whatever you can convince a judge it is.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:56:12 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:43:16 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    >>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Their obscure children aren't celebs though.
    >>>>For example...the recent photos of Brad Pitt and what's-her-name's kids
    >>>>on
    >>>>private property...
    >>>
    >>> You're right, the kids themselves aren't celebs.
    >>> But their *connection* to a celebrity makes them fair game, especially
    >>> when they are in the photo with the celeb.

    >>
    >>Is that legally described somewhere? -Or just sorf ot the way things
    >>are...?
    >>

    > Probably a little of both.
    > The law is whatever you can convince a judge it is.


    :(
    Ain't that the truth!
     
    Mark², Jul 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote

    > Their obscure children aren't celebs though.
    > For example...the recent photos of Brad Pitt and what's-her-name's kids on
    > private property...


    How about this one -
    http://www.MyOnlineImages.com/Members/mykoalabear/images/Rupert_Murdoch_And_
    3_Yr_Old_Daughter.jpg

    (Not sure where this came from.) To me it looks like a SWAT team member is
    telling him to 'step away from the child and keep your hands where we can
    see them'... But that's just my active imagination, and my hatred for
    Murdock and his minions!

    Paul
     
    Paul Bartram, Jul 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mike Henley Guest

    Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:

    In my humble opinion, kids are overrated and not worth the trouble;
    they're only ever so mildly more elegant than worms.

    The whole hoopla about kids sickens me; I can not stand the idea of yet
    another parent thinking his kid is the most "precious" thing in the
    universe and must be protected from all the evil hordes and their
    eyes... goddammit the thing is an aesthetic catastrophy and I don't
    want it on my pictures.

    Has anyone seen kittens? Now those are gorgeous, and human babies are
    less glamorous than the piglets in their shit in comparison.

    In my estimate if you're shooting a human baby the chances of a cliche
    are astronomical.
     
    Mike Henley, Jul 14, 2005
    #17
  18. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mike Henley Guest

    Mike Henley wrote:
    > Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
    >
    > In my humble opinion, kids are overrated and not worth the trouble;
    > they're only ever so mildly more elegant than worms.
    >
    > The whole hoopla about kids sickens me; I can not stand the idea of yet
    > another parent thinking his kid is the most "precious" thing in the
    > universe and must be protected from all the evil hordes and their
    > eyes... goddammit the thing is an aesthetic catastrophy and I don't
    > want it on my pictures.
    >
    > Has anyone seen kittens? Now those are gorgeous, and human babies are
    > less glamorous than the piglets in their shit in comparison.
    >
    > In my estimate if you're shooting a human baby the chances of a cliche
    > are astronomical.


    Ooops, you didn't write that, Larry, I did.
     
    Mike Henley, Jul 15, 2005
    #18
  19. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Mike Henley wrote:

    > Has anyone seen kittens? Now those are gorgeous, and human babies are
    > less glamorous than the piglets in their shit in comparison.
    >
    > In my estimate if you're shooting a human baby the chances of a cliche
    > are astronomical.


    nd shooting kittens isn't?
    --
    Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Jul 15, 2005
    #19
  20. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    "Mike Henley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
    >
    > In my humble opinion, kids are overrated and not worth the trouble;
    > they're only ever so mildly more elegant than worms.
    >
    > The whole hoopla about kids sickens me; I can not stand the idea of yet
    > another parent thinking his kid is the most "precious" thing in the
    > universe and must be protected from all the evil hordes and their
    > eyes... goddammit the thing is an aesthetic catastrophy and I don't
    > want it on my pictures.
    >
    > Has anyone seen kittens? Now those are gorgeous, and human babies are
    > less glamorous than the piglets in their shit in comparison.
    >
    > In my estimate if you're shooting a human baby the chances of a cliche
    > are astronomical.


    For that matter...babies themselves are cliche, and shouldn't be had!
    After all...EVERYONE was one...and nearly everyone has or has had one.
    No more babies, I tell ya!

    And... No more blue sky in photos!
    Trees too.
    I'm sick of trees.
    While you're at it, animals are in WAY too many pictures.
    There must be a 500 million animal pictures a year. That's too many.
    So no animals.
    Hey! I've got it!
    No--MORE--PICURES......OF ANY KIND!
    Pictures are cliche...after all...
     
    Mark², Jul 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ian Hurst (Troyka)

    candid shots & permission

    Ian Hurst (Troyka), Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    81
    Views:
    1,815
    Mxsmanic
    Dec 16, 2003
  2. Jim Redelfs

    Candid Pics Ethics & Legalities

    Jim Redelfs, Dec 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    619
    Mike Henley
    Dec 28, 2004
  3. Robert R Kircher, Jr.

    Some Candid Shots

    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Nov 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    544
  4. Eric B.

    Getting candid people photos

    Eric B., Jan 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,353
    Eric Schreiber
    Feb 6, 2006
  5. Lucid

    Good for Candid Shots?

    Lucid, Mar 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    93
    Views:
    1,777
    Tony Gartshore
    Mar 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page