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. Advertisements

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    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. Advertisements

  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    editor Guest

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

    Mark² Guest

    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. 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

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

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Celebrities are a special case.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    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

    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, Jul 12, 2005
    #10
  11. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Bill Funk Guest

    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, 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
     
    Paul Schilter, Jul 12, 2005
    #12
  13. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    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

    Probably a little of both.
    The law is whatever you can convince a judge it is.
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

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

    Paul Bartram Guest

    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

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

    Paul Heslop Guest

    nd shooting kittens isn't?
     
    Paul Heslop, Jul 15, 2005
    #19
  20. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mark² Guest

    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. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.