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.
Why? They are in public, just like any other person there.
By reacting this way you enforce this idea that every stranger is a pedophile while really, it's your accountant cousin you should worry about.
Morality is subjective . You cannot compare hitting on a model(harassment) to taking photos in a public space. Harassment is VERY different than street photography. In no way, shape or form was he harassing these children, nor parents. We have laws in the US that protect photographers taking photos in public spaces. You have NO RIGHTS to privacy in public spaces, period. If he were a creep he would have been hiding, and not offering his ID. But because it's children it automatically somehow makes him a creep. Stop profiling.
"He may be legally entitled to take photos, but it doesn't make him right"
or wrong.
"You can legally hit on a model while you are photographing her"
That's creating a "hostile work environment" and may constitute sexual harassment.
Who's putting these ideas in your head? They're wildly off-base.
Somehow we've arrived at a point where any 'stranger' interaction with children is forbidden and grounds for the worst kind of accusations. Parents bring their children into public places, they should expect public attention.
What's threatening about a photograph, anyway? This is a primitive, irrational fear, similar to aboriginals thinking a camera was somehow capturing their spirit. Ask a parent why they react this way and you'll get a lot of incoherent sputtering about stalking, pornography, and the internet. I get the fear, but as adults they need to recognize when a fear is way out of proportion with reality.
Because pedophiles are never parents.
Um, ever heard of incest?
Jeez.
It's a typical "Did you hear about this awful thing that someone did?" story with no followup, no context and therefor no significance. The photographer might be a creep, or the nicest guy in the world, we'll never know and the "journalists" behind this clickbait don't even care.
Sorry if it seems like I'm beating up on fstoppers but I'm really tired of this sort of junk, the only purpose of which seems to be generating ad revenue simply by getting everyone ever more outraged and confused about issues like race, privacy, child abuse and celebrity entitlement.
The writer's wink-wink-nudge-nudge implication that photographers should simply give up any time anyone asks them to stop for any reason, no matter how paranoid or ignorant, and his utter failure to address the legal, ethical, and interpersonal issues is, frankly, even more stomach-churning that the tawdry click-bait nature of the article. Infringements on photographers rights in public happen ALL THE TIME, and a smart conversation could have been empowering for folks who encounter such situations. Instead, we get this dreck.
Indeed. A sad, desperate attempt at publicity. Hillary’s low self esteem couldn’t be more apparent.
It is a one-sided story that could have been delved into further. However, let me bring up what I feel is an overriding factor in a scenario of this nature. I do realize that the vast majority of time there will be no issues coming about from activity like this. Am I'm willing to risk my child based on the incredibly small odds that something might happen? The answer is, no, I'm not.
Crystal, don't know if you have kids or not, and maybe that doesn't come into play. But, you need to give thought to the potential consequences regarding adults and children.
Is it weird to photograph children when you don't know the parents or the child? I would personally consider it a bit strange for sure; although I do realize I could be wrong. However, if you go back to my first photograph, and the mentioning of potential risks.
The likelihood of an issue arising I would assume to be exceptionally low. But, the horror of the potential consequences in the mind of a parent cannot be ignored. Sad to say sometimes bad things do occur. Therefore, you do what you can to protect the child, hopefully without getting crazy, whatever that might mean.
As for a photographer wanting to do these kinds of events for the learning curve. There are ways a photographer could simply have a conversation with whoever manages the teams and/or League. You could build perhaps a level of safety that would be prudent without going overboard. Possibly even include the police in the process. I don't know the level of risk involved but going back to perceived risk and consequences, maybe that's a wise thing to do in today's world. I would hope not but that may be burying your head in the sand in today's world.
It's a difficult subject today. Err to the safe side?
Ms. Duff could have explained her concerns in a better manner I feel. The gentleman taking the pictures should have realized the concern that could be brought about during this type of activity in today's world. I strongly feel a photographer in this scenario should realize there may be parental concern and went about potential shoots in a manner that would put parents at more ease.
I think both parties were wrong the way they handled themselves. But given the possible fear of the parent, it would be wise for a photographer to handle this type of scenario in a more understanding manner. It's simply a matter of respect for the one who fears they have something of value to lose, and that is their child.
"Is it weird to photograph children when you don't know the parents or the child?"
Is it "weird" to photograph ANYONE you don't know? Well, then, let's just ban photography in public. There. Problem solved. You can sell your camera now and move on to less "weird" activities. Choose carefully, though, because sketching in public is REALLY weird. Maybe just find a hobby you can do at home.
"Sad to say sometimes bad things do occur."
WHAT bad things, specifically? Cite me just ONE case in which photography in a public space was instrumental in execution of a sexual attack against a child. Go ahead.
Can't?
It's all in your mind. Want to protect your kids? Monitor their social media. Keep guns out of your house. Keep your prescription meds locked up. Don't let them run with popsicle sticks in their mouths. THAT's where the action is.
Bad things DO occur. Scapegoating people who use cameras isn't going to help. Holding up some hapless hobbyist for public scorn and humiliation might make you feel powerful, but that fear gnawing at your gut isn't going to go away until you recognize it as irrational and assess what the REAL threats in your life are.
I’m unsure if she did it to protect the kids or for the social media “likes.”
14 mil is more than enough to no longer care about likes. Wasn't many people there in the video so I'm sure a random guy walking up and snapping pics was easy to notice.
Pretty one-sided here. Sure, he was taking pictures of kids playing soccer, but who the hell knows the rest of the story. I'm all for protecting kids, but the minute she threw out her follower number I was done. It stopped being about the kids right then and there and started being about views she knew this would generate on a name no one has mentioned in a decade.
Also, if you want to practice sport photography, talk with the hundreds of groups that would probably love a photographer to cover events. Hell, you might even be able to make some $$ from parents, if you know how to work a business. With that said, just do 5 seconds of work to avoid all this other shit, and go through proper channels. We live in a world where people do horrible stuff. People need to protect kids, then protect themselves, and then everyone involved gets to win.
"just do 5 seconds of work to avoid all this other shit, and go through proper channels"
While I sympathize with your general comments as practical and constructive, I cannot accept the above suggestion as the solution to anti-camera vigilantism, as this extends well beyond photos of children to photos of, well, virtually ANYTHING in public. Duff and many here (go figure) are fostering a public hysteria by portraying the very act of photography in public as "creepy". I've lost count of the number of times self-appointed brownshirts have told me to stop photographing, even when my subject was A TELEPHONE POLE ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK. I mean, how the f^ck do I "go through proper channels" for that???
No, the solution is for people who value the First Amendment to help educate the public and to make it clear to everyone what the rights of various parties are regarding photography in public spaces. Caving in to unreasonable domination only empowers the mob.
It's only weird if you make it weird. I've known more than a one photographer over the years that have photographed random events. With kids, in particular, they would advertise to the parents telling them where they could view and possibly buy the images. Of course, it's best if you can establish some kind of communication with the teams or organizations beforehand, but sometimes you are just walking and see something that would make good photo practice. The camera looks new, it's not beyond belief that he actually was just trying to practice. When I was in college I did similar things, going down to the quad or other fields to photograph whatever random games were taking place.
"When I was in college" meaning you belonged there and was a fellow student. Not that weird.
He was in public. By your "logic" he does not belong in public. On what basis?
Define "belong". Do you really want to start prescribing what kinds of people "belong" in a public park? Think carefully before answering. Because, when U.S. laws began to enforce black people's right to equal access to public facilities, towns simply started closing their public pools rather than allow in people who "didn't belong". As a result, NOBODY COULD USE THE POOLS.
Yeah, whipped into a hysterical frenzy, a mob will sacrifice everyone's rights in order to assuage their fears of the people they don't understand.
Quote:
"It's only weird if you make it weird."
End Quote
Ronald, don't know if you have kids or not, and maybe that doesn't come into play. But, you need to give thought to the potential consequences regarding adults and children.
Is it weird to photograph children when you don't know the parents or the child? I would personally consider it a bit strange for sure; although I do realize I could be wrong. However, if you go back to my first photograph, and the mentioning of potential risks.
The likelihood of an issue arising I would assume to be exceptionally low. But, the horror of the potential consequences in the mind of a parent cannot be ignored. Sad to say sometimes bad things do occur. Therefore, you do what you can to protect the child, hopefully without getting crazy, whatever that might mean.
As for a photographer wanting to do these kinds of events for the learning curve. There are ways a photographer could simply have a conversation with whoever manages the teams and/or League. You could build perhaps a level of safety that would be prudent without going overboard. Possibly even include the police in the process. I don't know the level of risk involved but going back to perceived risk and consequences, maybe that's a wise thing to do in today's world. I would hope not but that may be burying your head in the sand in today's world.
It's a difficult subject today. Err to the safe side?
It's paranoia, from media pushing fearmonger-bait to sell advertising. Photographers have been shooting kids in public for a long time. Here's a shot of some kids playing in a Sydney slum in 1964. Without photography, we'd have no visual record of life in the past, and that is something that amateur photographers who just like to take pics of sunsets at the beach don't understand.
The only safe speed to drive is 5mph. Should we bring the speed limit to 5mph to err on the safe side?
In Asia, no one cares. You can shoot whatever and they just ignore you. They haven't been fed a bunch of fearmonger-bait.
Hillary Duff has 2577 posts on her Instagram page, and the majority of them are her kids. If some sicko wants pics of Duff's kids, they will find a tonne of them on her social media. No photography required. If she's so paranoid about people seeing her children, maybe she should stop plastering them all over social media every day of her life so that anyone in the world with an internet connection can see her kids.
Well said.
I have kids and I would certainly start getting nervous if some random guy started shooting my kids and he didn't look like having any connection with any one. Of course a public person would and should definitely be on the look out for weirdos acting like paparazzis (even if that's not their intention). Now anyone who doesn't have kids may not totally understand the situation going on here but I absolutely agree with her. Notice, that it is also her right to ask and to record him and she did the right thing which is nothing else but to protect her kids.
People are discounting this because she's famous but if not for her being famous I doubt this would even make the news. Parents are parents. He wanted to take pics of her child but didn't want her to video him in public. Creepy.
Creepy for publishing but the guy could be a peeping predator and it's okay... No words.
"Could be"
Meaningless weasel words.
For all we know, you "could be" a Russian bot programmed to undermine public confidence in the First Amendment.
Or you "could be" a perv who gets sexually aroused by putting Twizzlers up his nose.
Or, you "could be" a member of a Satanic cult.
Or...
Get the picture?
We have no more reason for such assumptions than you or Duff does for yours.
"I would certainly start getting nervous"
Why? What do you think a photographer is going to do with photos of your kids? Of you? Of your dog? Jeez, photos aren't some kind of voodoo talismans with power over their subjects, for crying out loud.
I think you should ask the creepy people what their plan may be. I have no clue. I however think parents are responsible for their kids and if that's the way they feel to protect them, then respect it. It's very basic proper parenting in my opinion. I read the following story this morning and clearly I see that many photographers think they can do what ever they want. But then... see the story. https://fstoppers.com/legal/photographer-has-defamation-action-thrown-ou...
I'll say this slowly and simply so you can understand.
A
photograph
is
not
a
threat.
As for respect, start with respecting the First Amendment and other people's freedoms.
Honestly, if you don't believe in people's right to make photographs in public places, I have no idea what you're doing on a photography forum. Maybe you took a right turn on the way to wearevigilantes.com.
Go for it, go shoot little kids in parks and at games. Clearly, go for it, just do it don't bring Amendments here if you won't do it. Go, please do it.
Already done it. Many times. I also photograph random strangers on the street. And, when they ask, I explain nicely. If they're uncomfortable, I might take my attention off them, but I certainly don't stop shooting other things going on in the area. See, it's possible to be considerate and still stand firm. I will not be pushed around by others simply because they have some religious conviction, superstitious belief, or paranoid delusion that they think gives them power over me. Nope.
So you don't tell people "you are a paranoiac", "it's my right" and all what this guy says including "you want to see my driver license", when he does not even introduce himself in the first place. Like I said before, first impression. So if you do it the right way, I don't get why you find this guy to be right. You can get a lot with proper wording, but if you want to look like a wall, expect people to react and in no way does it mean that the mom is wrong for asking.
In my view, YOU are one of the "creepy people".
I give up, your opinion and only yours is right and only yours can be right no matter what.
Ayuh. Nailed it.
I had no choice! I realize that each time I bike now and I pass a little kid’s birthday party in a public park their could be photographers like you making full use of their right because it’s a public place after all. I find that very weird but you are correct, it is your right.
No sh!t. What are you? One of those mythical pygmies who thinks cameras steal people's souls? Jeez. "OMG! PHOTOS OF CHILDREN! IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!" If you take photos of city streets, guess what? YOU'VE GOT PHOTOS OF OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.
I faced the same ignorant paranoia all the time for years after 9/11 just photographing the scenery of New York City. "OMG! IT'S A MAN WITH A CAMERA! MUST BE A TERRORIST! CALL THE POLICE! TACKLE HIM!"
Idiot brownshirts.
Gimme a break.
Random people on the street is quite different from following specific kids and ignore the parent request to stop. Are you saying you follow specific people all the way to the place they are going to or just capture images of random passerby?
Who was "following specific kids"? The guy was at a public field. He didn't "follow" anyone there. Newsflash! Pointing a camera at someone is not stalking. Again, WHERE IS THE HARM? If you don't want people to look at you, DON'T GO OUT IN PUBLIC. This notion that you can order people around in public just because you don't want to be seen is SICK. It's snowflake victimhood gone rabid.
So targeting the same kids over and over in a public place is not following them? The guy was just asked to stop shooting, and she absolutely has the right to address him on a public place despite your presumptions. Clearly the guy shows no intention on moving on and I stand correct, there are plenty more people in a park to shoot for practice instead of targeting the same ones over and over. The only paranoiac on the clip is the photographer who feels she wants to take his right and that's absurd. She didn't ask him to leave, she didn't ask to erase the pictures, just suggesting to move on to practice photography at another place, meaning you have what you want already, move on. The guy should not go shoot in public if he has a problem with other people addressing him in a park. How do you like it now that I present you with a new perspective?
No, "targeting" is not following, and photographing is not "targeting". What? Do you think a camera is a weapon now? And, yeah, she has the right to ask, and he has the right to refuse. What she doesn't have the right to do is throw a public hissy fit in which she slanders him to millions of people.
Your "new" perspective is sadly VERY VERY old. I've heard it a thousand times before, mostly from people who haven't a clue what the First Amendment means and who wrongly believe that a photo of them doing nothing wrong is somehow a threat.
Well, you said it, thousands disagree with you! Honestly, it doesn't come as a surprise from what you write.
She was nice, asked politely, he send her the law in her face right away, what a nice guy! According to YOU, he can keep shooting but she can't post a clip she has THE RIGHT to capture and was captured on PUBLIC LAND (haha!). And by the way, per your last sentence, if he did nothing wrong her video is perfectly fine and you shouldn't view it as a threat or a slander. He just got beat at his own game and that happens.
That doesn't change the fact that he was perfectly within his rights and she was a selfish jerk about it. And that you keep moving the goalposts.
What ever.
Such brilliant repartee. You must have been president of your kindergarten debating club.
End of the week, so you and your friends have a great weekend.
"End of the week, so you and your friends have a great weekend."
You, too. And, if you take any photos, make sure you get permission and written model releases from each and every person who may appear in them. Because, you know, Save The Children or something.
"I think you should ask the creepy people what their plan may be."
Ok, good idea. Mr. Creepy, what's your plan?