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.
Your irony detector is broken.
But mine works fine. It's ironic that you don't want me to stop you, but you think it's perfectly fine for folks to stop photographers in public.
Oh, wait! I get it! You think this applies only to photographers, and you're not a photographer, so it doesn't apply to you. Gotcha.
Guess what, the First Amendment applies to EVERYONE.
Yes, and your paranoia is out of control.
It's not paranoia when it happens routinely, as this instance proves. I have had ignorant brownshirts try to stop me from photographing in public MANY TIMES, even when my subjects were inanimate objects. As you'd know if you'd actually read my posts here.
It's the effort to stop photography in public that's based on paranoia, and you're only feeding it.
I'm sorry, but I reject the notion that things like taking photos of minors playing sports when you have no affiliation with the players is inherently "unethical", "immoral", or anything else along those lines.
I think the debate here is more about what do you do if parents ask you to stop. They can ask, they can't stop you, but how do you react. It's a matter of space but at the same time you take their space if they decide to take their kids off the team because they don't understand why random people find interest in games only the family can really find interest in. Public schools and parks are the only places where they can play with the team, it just doesn't mean everyone is invited.
Now you're backpedalling, saying it's OK but not diplomatic. A moment ago you were saying photographers are pedophiles who should be stopped.
Here's the simple answer: The Constitution, laws and courts all say I can do it. If you don't like it, you can leave the park. Nobody granted those parents EXCLUSIVE use of the park. It's there for EVERYBODY, including PHOTOGRAPHERS.
You are so off, not funny. Fields are assigned by game at specific times by the localities. Try to take a reserved field one day and see who gets kicked off. I actually would bring my camera to memorize the moment, and since it's my right on a public place, what could you do about it? NOTHING! Relax. Another thing is when a public park is closed it mean you can't go there despite the thing not being fenced and locked, yet it is a public place. Wow some kind of magic!
Benoit, your first post listed in this thread is "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." Your assertion sure appears to be that the mere presence of an unknown photographer represents a real threat to their "safety." Otherwise your point is moot.
As for the fields and the right to be there, well, there's a lot of factors that you need to know. Youth soccer leagues sometimes use public facilities, and others have their own private facilities. In the case of public spaces, you also need to know the nature of the arrangement between the park authority and the youth soccer league. Is this a mere weekly league game that only uses part of the park, or has the whole park been leased for a tournament? There's also a difference between attempting to usurp the space versus mere spectating. But regardless of all of this, it's safe to say that someone, be it a league official or park employee, will have to legal authority to trespass people from the park if cause is given.
Yes, play safely, that's right. I don't recall writing crime scene. Is that all what safely mean to you?
Well, you seem to be painting the desire to "play safely" with an external party's First Amendment rights as competing issues. It's not a stretch to think by "safely" you weren't exactly talking about ensuring that the kids were wearing the required gear to minimize the risk of injury. If instead your intent was to say that kids wanting to have fun aren't concerned about legal squabbles among adults, then you expressed it in a manner that was open to a VERY different interpretation.
"Try to take a reserved field one day and see who gets kicked off."
The photographer was not "trying to take a reserved field". But you're trying to move the goalposts. Sad.
"I think the debate here is more about what do you do if parents ask you to stop."
I think the point is what the VIGILANTES do when you say "No" to their "request".
I personally would stop, because I have the right to do so.
I believe that Hillary is predisposed to think that anyone with a camera is stalking her. Hillary's "I've got 15Million followers" comment proved that her's is longer than his and I waited for the "don't you know who I am?". Perhaps the next time this happens she'll simply approach the person, ask that they not photograph the children and go from there.
She lost all respect and credibility as a human and as a mother when she injected that 15 million followers threat into the discussion. You can bet on it, it's not the first time she played that card. It's repulsive.
Quote:
"Regardless of whether Duff — as the photographer suggests — was being paranoid,..."
End Quote
"paranoid?" Not necessarily... using common sense in today's world.
Is it paranoid to put a seat belt on in a car? Or, wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? I would term it using proper precautions regarding the level of risk versus potential consequences.
I do think Ms. Duff could have explained the concern better.
She was live-streaming before walking up to the photographer. It seems unlikely she had an open mind.
Your analogies don't add up. There is no equal statistical chance of experiencing the benefits of wearing a seat belt during a accident (high) and the odds of a photographer taking pictures of full dressed children doing sports in full view of anyone, being a sexual predator of some sort (very low). If he was hiding in the bushes and the children were in bathing suits, it would have been a totally different story. But it was not. Yet, Duff ("you're a creep!") and a lot comments are reacting in a way like he was that sexual predator in that alternate context. The "what-if" turns into "it was". Like magic. And many people just blindly jump on the band wagon. Like a mob handing out torches. It really is utterly ridiculous.
Ms. Duff is a hypocrite. On the same Insta page she "outs" a photographer for having the audacity to legally take photos of her children in a public place, she posts photos of her children for the benefit of her "15 million" followers.
If you're a photographer and you're not defending this guy's right to do what he was doing, you're eroding the rights enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution and may eventually find yourself unable to photograph anything outdoors. Mob hysteria is how oppression starts.
whatever you're doing, right or legal: just submit to the pitchfork mob or get lynched.
She came at him with a pretty heavy attitude. He would have probably been more receptive if she treated him more kindly.
We used to film a bunch of Fstoppers video in a field next to a school and even if our cameras weren't pointed towards the cameras, we were approached multiple times by teachers asking us what we were doing and asking us not to shoot the children. They were always very nice and so were we and we continued filming.
and what you mean is filming away from the kids. I had that many times happening with banks and other businesses. They never told us to leave but they wanted to make sure we were not using their businesses in the background.
She was obviously distressed by an act of taking pictures by an unknown person. After his "your paranoia is unwarranted" she employed a retaliatory "15mil" exposure, which caused photographer to defend himself by pushing her phone...
Obviously she hadn't been in the news for a while and needed to fix this problem...
technically it is illegal to photograph someones kid if the parent dose not want you too
Not true. In public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and photography is considered a protected first amendment right. At least, in the United States, where this occurred.
Not in the USA. The courts have long ruled that nobody in a public space has an expectation of privacy unless they make concerted efforts to conceal themselves (e.g. put a bag over their head). Efforts at concealment may not be thwarted, but anything or anyone that is in plain view can be viewed, sketched, painted, or photographed. It doesn't matter how old anyone is.
Now, how such a photograph can be USED is an entirely different matter and subject to litigation. But, the simple act of photographing things and people in plain view in and from public places is protected.
It's amazing how many "photographers" don't get this.
She seem to no problem showing off her kids on her Instagram feed. I wonder if she is worried about creeps downloading those images of her kids?
The law is pretty clear, you (your children, wife or dog) have no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. The photographer was not doing anything illegal or "immoral ", Duff overrated.
I suppose she might have been thinking her kid(s) were being singled out and their images would be displayed in the tabloid media.
If I genuinely wanted to practice sports photography, I would have checked in with the coaches and/or refs before the game, identified myself, and explained what I would be doing and why.
The guy should not have obstructed her camera. It indicated he was getting riled up, a bad sign.
She never said he is a pedophile that's totally you altering the content. Why change her words in such a way?
He never said his name but offers his driver license, who does that? His words are as brutal as hers. "I'm here with me", "it's legal". There is absolutely no attempt at warming up on his side or hers. How do you want it to not escalate from there?
Then she shouldn't take them out in public...
Now there is a solution.
#1 I have no idea who Hilary Duff is and don't much care. She has a right to question the man as to his intent when photographing. She has no right to order him to stop!! #2 I have no idea who the photographer was nor do I care. He may have had the right to use his camera but was stupid enough to do so.......both individuals were ignorant and behaved badly. As a photographer, I would approached both teams to explain what I wanted and ask for permission to do so.....If yes, I would offer copies of images to the teams. If no, I would find something else to shoot. If this parent approached me the way she did I would have called the police if only to make them aware of the problem.
I'm very biased in this situation and I didn't watch lizzie mcguire growing up so hilary duff means nothing to me. Anyone comes up to me aggressive like that and I'm going to act contrary just off GP, he offered to give her his ID that should be the end of it. Calling the cops on an innocent black man means I don't care about your point anymore.
The same guy who wrote the hit piece on Tatsuo Suzuki does another article attempting to drum up a lynch mob and capitalize on it. It's getting old already. You're getting tons of engagement with this baiting. Congratulations.
100% on the side of the photographer. There is nothing wrong or immoral about taking photographs in public. Maybe he could have handled it better but did offer to show her his ID. I'm not convinced there was anything he could have done short of capitulating that would have made any difference. Honestly, once Swank mentioned her 15 million followers, there would have been no way I would leave.
Swank??er.....ah......hmmmm..........Duff??
This article is oddly anti-photographer. First - photographers (hobbyist or professional) do commonly practice their craft as well as test out new gear. A nearby sporting event at a public park in daylight is a good venue for practicing / testing certain lenses, cameras and skills.
Secondly - the photographer was accused of photographing kids. Was he following a single kid around or was he photographing the game - i.e. following the action of the sport? Were people at the park and in the stands photographing the game and the players? If so, does each one of these people have to be a parent and do they each have to get permission from every parent?
Is it equally moral that the photographer, photographing in a public space, was threatened and had the police called on him (which, in the US, is a weaponized action)? The photographer was videod without his permission PRIOR to the woman approaching him. She never informed or asked him if it was okay to video him yet she feels it is within her rights to tell him that he needs permission or that he must stop and leave the premises.
This has little to do with parenting and everything to do with control. A privileged white celebrity wanted the scary black average-dressed man gone. Permit Patty strikes again.
F-stoppers - you really should do better to present both sides of the story.
https://youtu.be/DCRKSK32ank?t=47
sure not creepy at all.
So you mean Hillary Duff is a paedophile? Because she posted several pictures of her naked children and babies on her Instagram, showing them to 15 million strangers. Unlike the man in the video taking pictures of a soccer game with fully dressed players running at a distance.
You don't know what his pics were of. It's also legal to own a van and candy in public but if you saw someone with those around kids you might be alarmed as well.
We know it was no pictures of naked children. We know it was pictures of a sport event. We know it was the same scenery that every man, woman or child would see if they stopped at the road and watch the game. We know he was not hiding anything. We know that 70-200 lens is way to short to capture any detail other than players running on field. We know that Nikon Z camera has no x-ray sensor to remove clothing, or some special effects built-in to make children perform anything else than running after an ball and kicking it.
What we do know on the other hand, you, me and 15 million others, is that Duff is showing this kind of pictures: https://www.instagram.com/p/B1pamQeD7KD/
Duff was only alarmed? Did we witness two different videos? Or did we see a video were Duff walks up to this man, calling him a creep and insinuating all sort of things in front of an audience the size of a small country, all while being fully aware off the consequence for this man and while having no proof whatsoever of him doing anything illegal or morally wrong.
This story is basically about a mother smoking three cigarettes at the same time while carrying a baby, attacking someone and yelling that smoking is very bad and unhealthy for her children. All while he only has a pack of cigarettes visibly in his back pocket and is not smoking at all at that moment. And posting on her Instagram that this man is killing her children with his smoke.
There is a difference between you feeling alarmed and you having the right to stop the van owner from parking and then publicly libeling him as a "creep" for doing so. All kinds of folks feel alarmed about all kinds of things. That does not deputize them to oppress others who are doing nothing wrong or illegal. Feelings are not a license.
Do you think this would happen if he was a young, white, female?
I just can’t take seriously any celebrity who confronts people in public with their camera phone recording from the get go. Smells like a cheap attempt at publicity. Everyone wants to be the next “viral” sensation, even celebrities who have already had their moment in the spotlight. She could have approached him and discussed her concerns like a mature adult. Instead she sought out a confrontation on video in order to get some hashtags on Instagram. It’s a real pity seeing celebrities sink to the lowest common denominator.
And to anyone who has ever watched been to a kids soccer game - there’s usually a photographer or two on the sidelines. They’re usually hobbyists with telephoto lenses who then hand out their business cards for parents to purchase digital photos of their kids for $10-$20 a pop. Parents are usually happy to get awesome action shots that their iPhones can’t obtain. Hillary may not be aware of the fact that anyone can photograph her kids while in public. Maybe she ought to work on her obsessive helicopter parenting instead.
Sure and if he was hired to take pics or was there to sell pics he would've said so but he just kept throwing "legal" in her face to let her know he had the power over her. Also she walked over to him because he wasn't standing with the crowd but off on his own. Was a pretty small group there so people stick out if they are aiming a zoom lens at your kid. Funny thing is drone laws are getting screwed cause people are paranoid about peepers but a camera with a zoom lens, no problem.
She was the one trying to exercise power over him. He was just engaged in a harmless and legal activity in a public place, and she was trying to make him stop. Suppose he tried to stop the soccer match because his religion taught him that soccer was evil? Would you be saying that she would be obliged to be diplomatic in refusing such a lunatic demand?
As for standing off on one's own, do you always do your photography from within the midst of a crowd? Nobody should shoot in the end-zone because there's no crowd there? Gimme a break.
It seems the people that shoot in public the most are the ones on his side rather than the parents. You didn't think about that when you were taking pics of a young boy jumping into some water?