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.
So tell us, what is it?
Brilliant. I am bowled over by your wit, razor-sharp intellect, and rhetorical skill. "I'm rubber and you're glue..." You come up with that one yourself?
His intentions might be completely benign, but his negotiations showed signs of disrespect (labeling), refusal to cooperate (didn’t try to be sensitive to mothers fears and passive aggression (pushing down the phone). Because something is legal it might not ultimately make the world a better place. Obviously being a street photographer would require some social finesse and ultimately ability to give something up, not because of the fear of repercussions, but for the sake of humane approach in art.
Regarding pushing down the phone... she was all but saying "I am taking video of you to show the world you're a pedophile" - what would be an appropriate response? "Here, let me turn to the left, that's my good side. Tell me how to pose."?
Good question, Rob. True, at that stage conflict spiralled out of control, but pushing the phone did no good to resolve it. Obviously I believe that the best option is non-violent conflict resolution.
P.S. I am not sure the citation you showed reflect her actual words in the video.
The disrespect started with the woman. I have faced this kind of paranoid, ignorant, and most importantly, oppressive vigilantism many times in NYC since 9/11, and it p!sses me off no end. Don't photograph this, don't photograph that, don't photograph the %king telephone pole - it's "critical infrastructure". Ima sick the cops on you.
Goddam nobodies who turn into bullies because...why?
They push me, and I push right back. No appeasement. Call the cops. Go ahead. You're gonna look stupid. And, here's a photocopy of a one-page explanation of the First Amendment. If you can even read. Meanwhile, get off my back, or I'll call the cops for harassment and assault if you so much as touch me.
I've had the cops called. Know what? I welcome it. Because the cops know what's legal, and they'll make it perfectly clear to the know-nothings. My interactions with cops in this regard have been nothing but cordial and vindicating.
No more. The vigilantes cannot be appeased. They have to be aggressively shut up for disgraceful public behavior.
Thank you, Jacques. It is true, her attitude could have bean less damning to begin with. After demeaning comment "your paranoia is unwarranted" she went directly to big "15mil subs" guns. Some restrain and understanding from both sides could have stopped this conflict from happening.
P.S. Some experts consider act of taking pictures to be a form of aggression -
Susan Sontag analysed photography as a form of aggression, domination and predation in her 1977 assay "On Photography".
I don't buy it. Yes, behavior with a camera can be "aggressive", but so can similar behavior without a camera. Just looking at people can be "aggressive". Are we going to ban that, too? And, yes, I've read the book.
There are two issues at play here. One is how to be civil. Both sides could have handled the situation more diplomatically. But, the other issue is exercise of power. When you're trying to impinge on another's Constitutional rights AND deny them the use of a public park, all while refusing to remove yourself from a situation you say makes you uncomfortable, well, the victim of your bullying has no obligation, moral or legal, to be diplomatic in their own defense.
Thank you for clarifying your view, Jacques. I agree there are two points: diplomatic negotiations and constitutional rights. I concentrated on former, obviously.
She approached him already videoing and streaming to her 15m people to instagram tv before her judgmental words came out of her mouth. She did not lead by example and seek his permission to film & broadcast her video. She also panned and showed the game and spectators, Did she seek their prior approval to broadcast to 15 million strangers?
She also called the cops on him and wrote to all her followers that he is a creep (we all know what the insinuation is). This had nothing to do with the children and everything to do with her immature, self-righteousness and ridiculous levels of entitlement.
Pretty one sided. The world is going insane. We take "care" of our privacy on the one side, but on the other we put everything on social media. I am waiting when it will be banned to take photo on the streets. Or you will have to ask everybody in field before you take photo. We are slowly building 1984 society. Maybe if she ask the guy to stop because she do not agree he will stop. But she is much more aggressive than him.
He's a black guy, doing what we all have a right to do. How did she identify that he was not connected to any of the children? Was it race? Exactly who is being creepy here?
By the way, I looked at her Instagram account, and didn't see even one person of color there, aside from her post on this topic. She looks like a simple racist to me. When you are confronted in a rude and aggressive way, as she probably did, then your reactions might not be ideal under the circumstances. I don't blame him at all.
Edit: I checked again. Among her thousands of photos, I found one black couple's portrait, and ironically, one photo of a black boy at a (pro?) basketball game, and a photo of two black ghouls (or something) hanging on their front doors, presumably on Halloween.
A "Karen" exercising her white privilege and social status. By the way, I am a "classical liberal" (conservative, with libertarian leanings, who doesn't support Trump because he is too populist, and not a strict constitutionalist.
.
I think one of these days a photographer who is "legally in the right" is going to get shot or stabbed to death and the public will support the actions of the parent and the court will treat it as self-defence.
Meh.
The court will NOT treat it as self-defense, but it'll be a tragedy all the same.
The US is not exactly a great example of legal enlightenment and rule of law.
As to tragedy, who really cares; you people will forget and move on to your next outrage within a week.
"The US is not exactly a great example of legal enlightenment and rule of law."
Getting worse every day.
"As to tragedy, who really cares; you people will forget and move on to your next outrage within a week"
Speak for yourself.
Yes Jaques, I'm sure you carry these things, that the media tells you to be upset about, for years.
I'm vocal about this stuff because IT'S HAPPENED TO ME MANY TIMES. Random vigilantes trying to stop me from photographing even inanimate objects in public. It's happened often enough that I'm FED UP with it and absolutely refuse to submit to browbeating by ignorant egomaniacs.
Folks like you who would sell out the First Amendment aren't helping.
Slavery, apartheid, segregation, and the holocaust were all legal. People becoming bankrupt or dying because they can't afford healthcare...
Yeah, legal is a synonym to morality if by "morality" you mean an arbitrary social construct which is subordinate to the irrational fears and whims of the ignorant majority.
I'm sorry... did you equate slavery and the holocaust to having someone snap pics of you kid?
I'm not the idiot who conflated morality and legality.
So no, you entirely missed the point.
I want all the big guys who don't see a problem with a random uninvited person to go crash one of these birthday parties organized in public parks, shoot only the kids and tell me what happen to them. You guys have the right to do it, but would any one of you do it? Nope.
If I were in a park with my camera and came upon a kid's birthday party and saw a priceless shot, I most definitely would take the shot, show the parents, and offer to share. Too creepy for you, Benoit?
That's good. What you are saying is an instant that is just happening in front of you. It's quite different from standing with a camera at a game, waiting for that moment that probably will never come. I know you understand this, but why attempting to turn me into a bad guy when you and I know that the chances of getting hit by lightning are probably higher than you crashing a 7 year old birthday party in a public park?
You can't "crash" a kid's birthday party in a private venue, and there is no such protection in a public park. If celebrities don't like the spotlight they can get out of the business or stick to protected areas, but they do NOT get to come into PUBLIC space and restrict MY rights because they are celebrities.
So your real problem is with celebrities. Okay I take note.
Actually, you are off just like the other guy. If you want to have a birthday party in a public park you can reserve the space for a couple hours. I have never been to an improvised birthday party in a public park but many at reserved spots. Call your local town, city or county for details. I feel like I have been arguing with many people who think they know it all but really demonstrate they clearly don't.
Wow, talk about know-it-alls. Yes you can reserve a space in a public park, but that doesn't make the space private, only that another party can't be there. Anyone in a public space can be photographed. Period. Sorry this offends you. And just what do you think street photographers are doing, other than "waiting for that moment that probably will never come"?
Why would I be offended? I say go for it, just do it and show us how it's done. I'm waiting.
What I find perplexing is that Duff takes issue with a photographer taking images of kids playing sport yet uses her phone to frame both the other people watching the game and the children on the field, and then posts that to the internet ??
So what makes him a "creep" photographer, the fact that he's taking pics at a public kids soccer game? I could maybe see if the guy had a long lens and was trying to sneak around and take pics when no one was looking etc. But he's doing it right there in front of everyone. Now that doesn't necessarily make him an innocent person with no harmful intentions, but generally, most people that bad intentions don't just do that in public so freely - but who knows, maybe she saved some little kid or maybe not.
"that doesn't necessarily make him an innocent person"
You had me up until you started backpedaling. The burden of proof lies upon the person who is trying to stop the photographer. NO stranger is "necessarily innocent", and that should never be the standard for how we treat each other. When we all start stomping on everyone who MIGHT not be "innocent", that's the end of civil society.
"he would have made a reasonable case to support his actions--not that she was in a frame mind to be reasonable"
This is EXACTLY the point. Appeasement of folks who cannot accept refusal almost never helps. The photographer is not under any obligation to prove his innocence. Not only is it not his responsibility, but given a vigilante's state of mind, it's an IMPOSSIBILITY. In such situations, the vigilante will almost NEVER accept a refusal of their "request", no matter what explanations or sympathies are offered. What is bound to happen, then, is that the vigilante will whip themselves up into a state of righteous fury and then step over the line from making a request to making a DEMAND, one they have no legal right to make. The photographer's only recourse, other than submitting, is to treat them like a misbehaving toddler (I have two), simply and firmly say "No", and make it clear there will be consequences for harassment ("I've explained my intentions and rights to you. I will ask the police to explain the law to you if you do not leave me alone.")
She is literally posting pics of her children from all sorts of angles on her Insta.
Any perv can just grab the pics of her kinds in pyjamas, diapers or even swimwear from there. Gotta love double standards.
To me this https://www.instagram.com/p/B2uj2zcp1oO/ is far worse than a bunch of kids properly dressed playing soccer.
Here is the problem. What if she was not recognized as a celebrity by the guy or simply if an other parent in the group never posts their own kids on social media.
No need for hypothetical scenarios here. It‘s a public event on an open space. It‘s the same as walking around the streets of a city. Do you habe any idea how many times you, me and millions of children are caught on photos of tourists? Nobody‘s complaining about that. If you really want to prohibit taking photos of/at public events, the it _must_ be consistent and include any public space. No more photos at schools, stadiums, streets, sights, castles, etc. That‘s a world I do not want to imagine.
I really dislike this way of always assuming the worst of people and always sexualizing everything.
First yes, my kids have been taken in tourists pictures probably hundreds of time. If a stranger takes a picture of my kids multiple times at different angles with a 200mm, it is nothing like appearing randomly on a tourist shot or even on a page of a news publication. STOP what you are doing, quit photography this instant if you can't differentiate the two. That is my suggestion to you. If someone takes a pic of my kids doing a sport of anything, I don't give a fly. If they target my kid for no reason and keep going, yes, I'll start getting concerned and will ask what is going on unless I know they are part of what ever the event is. That is VERY BASIC parenting and the kids have no clue some guy is targeting them. You let your kids go with a total stranger, you are correct, that is YOUR right, however you may pay for that decision later. If a mom ask a stranger why he is taking photos, I sure can't blame her for doing her job as a mother. Did she stop anybody else from taking pictures? NO. You guys are making up a photography confiscation theory for absolutely no reason, it's ridiculous. I don't know how many pictures or how long he was there for or if he targeted specific kids in his frames, neither do you. She just asked he stops, didn't ask to see or erase pictures. In fact he moves toward her and even touch her phone but what can you see if you decide you didn't see that part, right? Breath people, it's not the end of photography because of Hilary Duff. I hope you can do better.
Nobody does street photography on a public sidewalk with a 200mm lens. Nobody shoots sports from 100 feet away with a 24mm lens.
STOP what you are doing, quit photography this instant if you can't differentiate the two.
I shoot a lot of cars and 100 feet away at 24mm, yes sir, you clearly have never tried it. Grow up, you are amusing me. Street photography and paparazzi, no sir, that's not my thing, never will. Shooting random kids with a 200mm, absolutely not my thing! Yours? Great
It might be a cultural thing, but not being American I can't understand why this is a big deal at all.
Taking pictures of fully clothed children doing sports, why and how would take be creepy or perverted?
If they were in swimsuit I might understand, but in this situation I can't understand it at all.
It seems to me, again not American might be a cultural thing, that this is just a case of prejudice and racism against the guy for being male and black.
I say this bring both a parent to two girls and having my professional part of photography being taking pictures of children. Of course being paid I am invited to be where I am, but still I can't imagine a single case how fully clothed children playing soccer might be made into a perverted scenario.
Search any city here: https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/sex-offender-registry
I see a bunch of lists of names and people.
They are quite diverse too, women, men, all ages, all races.
Should I assume that every person is a sexual offender?
I see no mention of soccer games or cameras anywhere, care to point me in the right direction?
Never knew cameras and soccer equalled rape around here. Thanks for clearing it out.
I didn't know either, but then I am not the one who made that up.
I hope you don't have kids, because apparently you think that the only reason anyone is interested in kids is because they're a pedophile, ergo, if you have kids...
I do have kids, I mentioned it earlier. oops, do you even read the stuff?
Well then, if you photograph them, you must be a perv.
Or, you may need mental help? Lets go for that one.