Hilary Duff Challenges 'Creep' Photographer for Photographing Her Kids' Soccer Game

Hilary Duff Challenges 'Creep' Photographer for Photographing Her Kids' Soccer Game

Is it ok to photograph a kids’ soccer game if you don’t know any of the children? It’s not against the law, but that doesn’t necessarily stop it from being inappropriate, and Hilary Duff wasn’t shy to put her point across.

Actor and singer Hilary Duff was attending her kids’ soccer game and spotted a photographer on the touchline. Clearly, something made her wonder if the photographer had any connection to the children out on the pitch, so she approached him to ask, recording the encounter on her phone. She then posted the clip to her Instagram account.

The conversation lasts a little less than 90 seconds, and the photographer doesn’t come out of it very well. When asked to stop photographing, he responds that he’s not doing anything illegal and that he’s simply practicing his photography.

While the photographer is entitled to take photographs of whatever he wants in a public place, there’s certainly a better way of handling a request from a parent who is asking you to stop taking photographs of their children. Regardless of whether Duff — as the photographer suggests — was being paranoid, there are probably better ways of practicing your photography skills without photographing children you don’t know.

In the caption for her Instagram post, Duff states that laws surrounding children and photography need to be changed. How do you feel about this encounter? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

The child in the lead image is from a stock photograph.

Log in or register to post comments


Alex Cooke's picture

If he knows the laws about shooting in public so well, why does he touch her phone and try to push it down when he's uncomfortable with her filming him in return? Yes, he's legally in the clear (assuming that's not a field on private grounds), but legality =/= morality.

Brad MacMillan's picture

I agree Alex. Legality should not overcome morality. If you want action shots, go to the dog park. Catch a pickup game of basketball or football at a park. Ask a high school team if you can "practice" your photography in a tfp fashion or something like that. Go to a pond and practice your tracking and settings with birds. There are literally thousands of better ways to "practice" your brand of photography. Have some class.

Jacques Cornell's picture

What, exactly, is "immoral" about photographing kids?

Brad MacMillan's picture

Nothing. If you have kids there, know some of the kids or at least the parents or have been hired. This day in age, there have been too many issues with pedophiles and kidnappings around the world. Also, when a parent asks you to stop photographing their child, you stop. Simple as that. You don't state that it's not illegal. That makes the photographer look worse. If he apologized for taking pictures of her child and then made them aware that it's not illegal; but didn't shoot any more pictures of them or moved on, that would have been a much better response. Someone taking pictures of just kids they don't know and then very matter-of-factly stating its not illegal, that doesn't fly, morally.

Dan Marchant's picture

"there have been too many issues with pedophiles and kidnappings around the world. "

Except that the truth is that countless studies by police and various social services show that those kids are far far far more likely to be abused by.... a parent, close family or friend, the coach, family priest, scout master than they ever are by a random unconnected person with a long lens.

Brad MacMillan's picture

But it's perception. I was storm chasing last year and approached by a rancher, wondering what I was doing. I happened to be shooting a time lapse. He was concerned over whether I was spying on his Ranch. Seeing if there was anything to steal. Perception. I also explained exactly what I was doing. I didn't challenge him and just say "I can be here, it's not illegal." Again, perception. A guy at a kids' soccer game that has zero connection to those kids, zero communication and is stand-offish right off the bat, is perceived as a threat to a parent. I completely understand that.

Dan, you're absolutely right but, parents don't play with statistics - keep in mind that John Walsh of America's Most Wanted fame had his son abducted by a stranger and later found decapitated. It can happen . I don't believe this guy had any ill intent he was just a little clueless to the social faux pas. The fact of the matter he was singled out because was amale, I've caught the glare of some angry mama bears taking pictures of my son at the park and there have been countless other stories of men being singled out for having cameras at public events involving children-it's an unfortunate thing in our society where men are often seen as predators - had this been a woman,no matter the color, I doubt many would have batted an eye. Now, a hypothetical: what if situation was changed up a bit and it was say a group of 12-14 yr old girls practicing cheerleading, I think the perception and people(mostly men mind you) siding with the photographer would dwindle down a great deal. That all being said Hillary Duff handled this very poorly and it probably comes with the territory of being a celebrity(no matter how small) and just snap under the paranoia that comes with fanatics always hounding you.It would do her good to apologize but we live in such a litigious society that she probably fears being sued. I can say though, If I was at the park with my son and some stranger was taking pictures of my son, I would be on edge myself

Krzysztof Kurzaj's picture

So in your opinion photographing children playing soccer is in the same subset of criminal activities as pedophilia and kidnappings? Dude, what the fuck is going on in your head??? I'm seriously asking. How do you even connect the dots here?

Benoit Pigeon's picture

These games are organized on public land, not for people to assume their first amendment but to give a place for kids to play safely. A 7 years old has no clue what an amendment is.

Krzysztof Kurzaj's picture

And at which point exactly did this photographer endanger well being of those kids?

Benoit Pigeon's picture

You should be the one answering this since you are the one associating these kids with danger. That's really not what happened here despite your efforts at funneling your interpretation toward imminent danger.

Jacques Cornell's picture

"Someone taking pictures of just kids they don't know and then very matter-of-factly stating its not illegal, that doesn't fly, morally."
That may not fly DIPLOMATICALLY, but there's nothing immoral about it. Know what's immoral? Harassing strangers in public and then vilifying them before an audience of millions. Shame on her, and shame on you for defending her.

Mike Conley's picture

Jacques, you're absolutely correct. They weren't too concerned about it when Meg Britton was taking her suggestive photos of kids.

Jacques Cornell's picture

V V - Well? Spit it out. What is immoral about photographing kids? Don't just hide silently behind an anonymous downvote.

Who gets to pick the "morality"...In this day and age "morality" has become pretty flexible.

The Democrats

Krzysztof Kurzaj's picture

Dog park? Well, I say it's immoral to take a photo of my dog. What are you going to photograph now?

Brad MacMillan's picture

Go to the pond and photograph the birds landing and flying. It'll work on your tracking the same way. You're taking action shots at that point, so birds work just as well. Once you get good at tracking offer your services to some sports teams. Go about it the right way. The main thing is, as when someone asks you to stop taking pictures of their child, or in your case, dog, don't challenge them. Stop. Don't be a dick about it because "you can."

Joseph Balson's picture

Where does it stop Brad?
When do you stop complying with anyone asking you to stop doing something perfectly legal?
What if someone at the pond just doesn't like you shooting the birds and asks you to stop?

also, we have rights now because someone has been a dick about it in the past.

Krzysztof Kurzaj's picture

You really just don't get it, do you? Duff is posting on her IG a ton of pictures of her children in virtually every situation, including taking a bath. The kind of stuff that may actually become embarassing to them at some point in the future. Yet, she ferociously confronts some dude who is taking photos of children playing soccer in a public park. Note also that at no point it was discussed whenever he actually took a photo of her child in particular or whenever he wants to publish such material. Ask yourself a question who is a dick about this whole thing in the first place.

Brad MacMillan's picture

I get it just fine. But that is her child. Not yours. If she wants to post something of her family, that's her choice. Not yours. This is the morality dispute.

I once had to stop a photographer from photographing a dead teenagers' body. He was crawling through the ditch, in a closed off area. The morality of stuff like this is just that people want to push boundaries. "How far can I take it?"

Morality over legality, that's what your first comment read. Is that really a place you want to live? Who determines what is moral? There is a reason we have a legal system and not a "moral" one. Morals are subjective, laws are not. Dude was perfectly within his _right_ to photograph. Now he's vilified because a celebrity decided to blast him online to her millions of followers. The way this country works is that you can do whatever you want as long as it isn't explicitly against the law. Was what the guy doing against the law? No? Class dismissed.

Jacques Cornell's picture

So now YOU get to determine what WE get to photograph? Um...no.

To answer your question, because mob rule is scary.

Mob rule and he is black. That's why he's nervous probably.

Rob Davis's picture

Absolutely. Black men have died for “looking suspicious” in America. A famous white woman leveling that charge against you must be nerve racking.

Alex Cooke's picture

That’s a really good point.

Say what? That's a sad racist lens you view life through. If he was white he'd be more likely splattered across the headlines as a prime example of toxic masculinity..

you are one special kind of blind...

There are too many examples of black men being shot for less. He could be holding anything at all — a camera, a phone, a cat, a pizza — and it is presumed to be a gun. Police show up and start shouting "Gun! gun! gun!" and in moments he is shot dead. Their excuse is always that they "thought he had a gun".

More comments