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.
You really can't follow a logical line of argument, can you?
"Lets go for that one"
Nah, I like mine better. Obstinate defense of civil rights is not a mental condition. Paranoia about creeps going to the trouble of buying expensive camera gear, learning to use it, and exposing themselves to public view and harassment to make titilating pictures of a fully-clothed kid kicking a soccer ball, rather than, you know, downloading similar "provocative" images from the Internet, all so they can diddle themselves in their basements, now THAT strikes me as classic paranoia, at least from a layman's perspective.
Now, now, wait a minute! Before you get all excited, yes, I did use the word "layman", and it has the word "lay" in it, which in your mind probably has a sexual connotation, but that's not what "layman" means. Look, I know sex is a sensitive subject for you, and I don't want to cause you offense or fear, so I'm going to explain exactly what my intentions are and why I have the right to write what I'm writing. In using my camera - I mean, the word "layman" - I was simply trying to communicate a normal, harmless appreciation of sports - I mean, my own lack of expert standing on the subject - so that you wouldn't think I was misrepresenting myself or having any nefarious intentions. I assure you, I mean no harm and am simply engaging in the Constitutionally protected activity of free expression simply because I enjoy making photos - I mean points of logic and public policy - and sharing my enthusiasm for games.
There. Have I explained myself sufficiently? Are you placated? Do I have your permission now? Would you like to call the cops?
Also, him being a black male is not only racial profiling it is also male profiling.
Modern women are awfully close to male behavior when it comes abuse. In situations of abuse of confidence the only 2 cases of sexual abuse I personally know were both done by women, and new statistics show that abuse by women is sky rocketing, so again not only profiling but useless profiling.
Creepy and perverse the people who think that anyone who's watching unknown children is a creep and/or a pervert.
In the meantime they post their whole private life on IG and FB.
Strange days..
Can someone explain to me the harm that could occur by simply taking photos of someone under these circumstances?
Simple. Ask the parents if it's okay and you get treated fairly with a yes or a no.
Your response is a non sequitur to my question. Can someone explain the harm that could occur by taking photos of someone under these circumstances?
I don't think you want an answer. Please impose your right on who you feel like you should and good luck!
"I don't think you want an answer."
Based on what?
It's obvious that you're not able to answer the question.
Sounds good.
I don't think you can answer the question. You don't seem to even understand it. Here, let me spell it out for you in simpler terms:
How
Do
Photos
Hurt?
You need help dude.
Can't answer a simple question?
Disgusting is exposing a guy you don't know and have no idea you're doing it here. Not fair to the guy that was not breaking any law. Shame on you!
This is wrong and ridiculous for so many reasons. These only jump to my mind:
She started out calling him a creep. That was her prejudice. The moment she said that, he felt she saw him as a paedophile. For everyone to see on IG. The man and others have pointed out: she made it creepy by implying that.
But let's break it down for a minute, WITHOUT using slippery slope thoughts. What is he doing? He is taking pictures. Of what? Of kids at a sport event. I feel like a lot of people react to this fact in a way they would react to something that is objectively creepy. Something like "OMG see that man taking pictures of our fully clothed kids doing sport in plain sight, what if he did that naked, hiding in the bushes and our kids were in bathing suits? He's a creep! We need to protect our kids!" So you shift reality to a new reality and everybody goes with it. That slippery slope... I'm not saying you can't express concern, but is not the way to go at it.
Another obvious point nobody makes: she calls this man a creep for taking pictures of kids playing soccer and showing them (when he decides to publish, he said he was practising) to what.. a couple of hundred people? ... while she posts pictures of her nearly naked children on the same Instagram account she uses to attacks him with. That's just absurd. How are so few voices pointing this out? This makes no sense.
I scrolled a couple of comments on her post and a lot of people - mostly women are high fiving Duff for "protecting her kids" and "being a good mother". But again, she shares intimate photos of her kids on an account with 15M followers. Photos nobody else would ever see, unless she posted it. Pictures without ANY doubt already downloaded and circulating on hard drives and sketchy websites. That's how the world goes. But here we have a photographer taking pictures in a public place, capturing public scenes EVERYBODY can see for themselves. The same people praising her for protecting her kids probably liked a photo of her baby in diapers. I'm sure people will react to this point by saying that she made the choice of publishing those pictures, while she has no control over pictures made by others. That is correct. But only if they were the exact same photos with the exact same reach and exposure. Which is not the case at all.
Her argument is also: if you don't know children on the field, it's creepy to take pictures. Where is the logic in that? How would an uncle or neighbour of some kids automatically never be any danger or "creep" to children. I'm trying not to fall in the same slippery slope argument, but the fact is that most abusers are actually people from within the inner circle of children, whom they trust. So statistically, she would have to be more worried about leaving her kids with a family member than a photographer taking photos at the side of a game.
As pointed out many times before. She calls him out for privacy and protecting the ones that need protecting, but at the same time she is asking her 15M to dox him.
If she is "protecting the children" (of what?) and he poses a real threat to them, why is every other parent just sitting there, enjoying the game and drinking their pepsi? Why is she the only one making that move towards him? Why has not every other adult sitting there, jumped up and run to her aid in defending and protecting the innocent children from "the creep"?
"Protecting my kids" is such a hollowed out argument. It changes the whole context of an event, creates a problem when there is non and people know it's an argument that has instant following, even when it makes no sense.
Taking the above in account and then lynching this man on her account is just.... criminal and completely over the top. People have been harassed and even killed for less. Out of those 15M followers, there sure are a couple of nutcases. And Duff knows this. This is the example she is setting for her kids? If you feel entitled and butt hurt, destroy somebody?
tv media should take over this and force her to apologize to the guy for being a prejudice person to the least.
Do you take a pen from a stranger or do you ask if you can borrow it? What's your reaction if someone grabs it from your hand without warning. The answer of course is your are super happy. I know after reading your post that it is the only answer you can provide me. In the end the pen is returned to you and the person doesn't even say thank you. Nothing happened because the pen was returned to you. That's cool.
You're not making any sense. Comparing physically robbing someone to taking pictures in a public space.Just as a start, the first one is illegal, the second one is not.
If the man stole the kids underwear or bicycles, there would be some way I would see a connection. But he did not.
You're also ignoring every point I made. Let's apply one of my points to your pen theft analogy.
Imagine a woman stealing pens from everyone all the time.Thousand of pens. She drops a pen that is clearly broken and not usable. A guy picks up that pen and intends to keep it. She confronts him that he is a thief an is stealing her pen and she is yelling that she is protecting her pen and that stealing a pen is wrong. She records this and shows this to 15 million people. In a world where pen stealing is one if the worst crimes ever and that man is now a pen thief for the rest of his life.
Do you want me to continue?
You did not read. No one stole the pen.
You're right, no one stole or borrowed a pen in the video.
Then do it, go shoot random little kids at a game or a birthday party in a park, clearly you are allowed to. Will you? because it sure doesn't creepy.
She literally posted photos of her naked baby - I repeat.. n a k e d - on her Instagram and is showing it to 15 million strangers - again... 15M s t r a n g e r s.
This ends the argument, final. Nothing can fix that, she lost all credibility.
And here you are, talking about a pen.
I didn't go see the naked baby, I leave that to you. Was he or she partially covered or do you go with no detail so everyone can fall for it? If the baby is totally naked, that's wrong, if partially you are wrong. That's the way I look at it.
Why would I lie about the baby being naked when everyone can look and see? I'm not you, I don't deliver bad points. And again you ignore the point I'm making about her blatant entitled hypocrisy, you didn't even look at her Instagram account. Your response is merely insinuating I'm lying about the baby picture.
I'm done. A carrot has better skills and a more intellectual honest way of discussing than you.
I see a baby in diapers. Is that what offends you?
There was another photo of a naked boy in a tub of blue water.
Was I guess
What about you start a seminar on how to shoot random kids in public places in front of their parents. Sounds like a money maker too.
When nobody protects people's rights against paranoia, pretty soon nobody has any rights. You're part of the problem.
Paranoia, haha, that's funny coming from the person who brings Amendments all day long on a photography forum, and sad too.
Because Amendments are so paranoid.
I don't know what do you think? Clearly that's all you talk about, not me.
I think you're a clown who would like to see the First Amendment shredded and photography in public places banned in order to protect snowflakes' feelings.
"Do you take a pen from a stranger or do you ask if you can borrow it? What's your reaction if someone grabs it from your hand without warning."
???
What if the photographer was a woman? Would there be as much backlash?
One visit to her social media accounts shows a bumper crop of photos of her kids. If their "safety" and keeping their likeness from falling into the wrong hands are the issue, why are the still on line? I'd post my guess, but when you can have your cake and eat it too I'm confident your attorney is better than mine.
I literally feel like if this was a woman shooting, this would have never happened.
I was out taking photos for a timelapse once at the National Harbor. Now, my subjects were the Capitol Wheel and the Drowning Man sculpture. But, kids were playing on the sculpture in the sand. If one of those parents had approached me and didn't like me being there, was I under any obligation, legal or otherwise, to stop shooting?
no
after some more thinking, I have to add a "but"...
According to your profile picture, you skin is quite darker than mine.
The reality is: you could end up being shot to death for not complying.
This world is fucked up. Prejudices and mob law are the rule.
Some people want photographers to ask permission for something that is totally legal: taking photos of whatever in public space. That is submitting to the mob law. When you do that, you give up some freedom.
On the other hand, that mob is actually dangerous: doing what you legally can do can kill you, especially if you're black and a man. Or you can have your reputation ruined, like this black photog here. His face is everywhere on the internet, so many outlets shared that stupid story. The damage he is facing is tremendous and totally disproportionate. What he did was legal, and he only refused to submit to some butthurt entitled bitch and the mob mentality.
My instinct is to refuse to submit to the mob but is it worth the damage? I don't know. Maybe male photogs, especially black photogs, should only go out and take photos accompanied with a lawyer and a bodyguard.
Yeah, this world is fucked up.
Haha, I wasn't going to mention that, LOL! But, yeah, that's why I have to be more careful. Just because something's legal doesn't mean I can. Luckily for me, no one questioned my being there. But, I made sure to make it obvious that the kids weren't the focus of what I was doing.
What is a Hillary Duff? Is that a place in the English countryside?
Props to him for practicing his photography on moving objects to hone in his skills. Props to her for having 14 million soc. med. followers. Each of them could work on their tact, but confrontational situations are rarely easy and without emotion.
I see points from both sides and in the end I really don't care, but I do like a good debate.
Let me toss this in the pool: I've always understood that opportunities don't always come easy. Since things aren't always handed to you in life, I was always taught you have to go make things happen for yourself. Make opportunity where there wasn't. Who's to say this guy wasn't practicing his photography so he could pick up a little freelance work at a local paper or something and needed some portfolio material to show he's able to attend local events and capture great work?
Then he has the wrong approach. He should present himself and explain what his intention is and that's pretty much it. Especially if he wants a job. So yes, there is always that "what if" we see here a lot. Say the hiring person at the publication was actually at the game with his kids but the photographer didn't know and didn't ask for permission to shoot for practice. Now who looks like he won't get the job? If I stalk my clients on their private life, I won't have any clients within too long. But yet, I am allowed to go shoot their kids in a public place any time I want they say.
You don't ask people for permission when doing street photography. You don't interrupt them in a game. And you don't canvass the stands for permission. Someone will always say no. You are imposing an unnecessary and impractical limit on accepted practice.
Of course you do ask, you ask who the person in charge of the game is and go from there. That's why this guy ended being approached in a negative way and some of you turn him into a victim. It's a process. Many parents are team leaders or business owners and they'll take process over random when it's about their kids. This guy may have missed the opportunity to do business with the parents simply because of his approach. First impression, that's it!
The response of a true authoritarian - "Ya gotta ask permission" to exercise your Constitutionally protected rights. How about you ask my permission before you post again?
Good luck man!
Stop! I perceive your posts as a threat to my children! You must stop now! Because, um...I say so! And if you don't, I'll libel you as a perv to millions of people! So there!
Funny! Haha. Isn't it weird that you talk about the first amendment all day here and yet ask me to shut up? Pathetic and funny.