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.
When I started getting back into photography I faced a dilemma I love shooting pictures of people but realized taking pictures of strangers would get me in trouble, so I started volunteering to shoot charity events back in 2006. Today I shoot 40 to 50 events a year for six major charities and a sports and event photographer for a Christian grammar school in Seawell New Jersey. This charity and the participants get pictures of their event, and I get to enjoy my hobby. I don't charge for my work or pictures and maintain a SmugMug site for free downloads of my work. You can view my work at www.brianric.com
"taking pictures of strangers would get me in trouble"
This might have been your experience, but I don't think it's wise for others to assume this will be the case for them. I'm not a devoted "street shooter", but I have done plenty of urban scenic and candid shooting in NYC and around the world, and I've never gotten "in trouble". I've been asked what I was doing, and I've had folks demur when they were my primary subjects. I'm always careful not to push into confrontation - because I'm not interested in those kinds of photos - and when folks look uncomfortable I either seek permission or move on to other subjects. Sometimes, all it takes is to signal a request for permission by making eye contact, holding my camera up and raising an eyebrow. This gives my subjects a chance to say "no" or turn away, and if they don't, I take it as tacit permission to continue. It empowers the subjects without opening the can of worms that verbal interaction can, and I find it very effective. It also works in places where I don't speak the language.
Western paranoia gone mad. If some sicko wants pics of her kids, all they have to do is go to her Instagram account and there's plenty there. This paranoia is built on the idea that photographers are a threat. I was shooting a gas station when I was at university for a portfolio based around the car, and they thought I was a terrorist. Yeh, a terrorist is gonna come with a big camera and lens on a tripod at dawn to shoot a gas station, ugh. When you go overseas to Asia, no one gives a shit, they just ignore it. You can shoot at will, they aren't filled with paranoia. Our media has spent so much time fearmongering as bait to sell advertising that people are unreasonably paranoid.
All that said, he should have known this would happen. Just don't bother, you can't make paranoia see reason. It is what it is.
Paranoia? Is that not the reason your profile has zero info. How can I mail you a mirror that way?
Fear is not rational. Some folks can see past their fear, and some can't.
"It’s not against the law, but that doesn’t necessarily stop it from being inappropriate"
Sorry, Andy, this is a weasely non-defense of First Amendment rights. Duff is the "inappropriate" one in this scenario, and she doesn't get off without criticism for being a jerk, appropriating public space for her exclusive use, and punishing someone for harming absolutely nobody. The framers of the Constitution and the courts are firmly on the side of the photographer's activity being protected by law. She doesn't get to say what anyone can photograph in public just because a baby popped out of her.
It's sad that a community of photographers, including, seemingly, an Fstoppers contributor, is willing to surrender civil rights enshrined in the Constitution to hysteria.
It's very simple. Everyone has a right to photograph anything they can see with the naked eye while in a public space, and folks who don't want to be photographed have a right to leave. The End.
You keep ignoring her rights. She can record him but you and others have been penalizing her for doing it which goes against your own defense on his behalf. Bad start.
Wrong again. "Folks who don't want to be photographed have a right to leave."
That includes the photographer who didn't want her to record him on video. They could have had a duel, with him photographing her and her video recording him photographing her, until they both dropped of exhaustion. Or they could have both left. But - and this is the critical part you continue to miss despite my repeating it about 300 times - NEITHER has to right to force the other to stop recording. They BOTH have legal rights of control over what the other does with their material. She can enjoin him from making commercial use of his photos or using them to defame her or her family, and he can do likewise regarding her video.
It's really not rocket science, and any doofus can discover these facts with a 3-minute search for "photographers' rights in the U.S." and 10 minutes of reading.
Andy,
"there’s certainly a better way of handling a request from a parent who is asking you to stop taking photographs of their children".
Please tell us what that "better way" is? It's pretty clear that as long as he refused her request, no matter how nicely he did it, she was going to go nuclear, and, if you ask me, automatic submission is not a "better way".
Yes, it's nice to try to be nice, to be understanding, and to explain and try to put people's fears to rest. But, you know what? Some people simply cannot be placated and feel entitled to FORCE others to accommodate their FEELINGS. I'm sorry, but when someone like this moves from making a "request" to harassment and threats, my clear answer is going to be NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OR THE POWER TO MAKE ME STOP ENGAGING IN LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITY, AND IF YOU CONTINUE I WILL CALL THE POLICE AND SEE YOU IN COURT FOR HARASSMENT.
Keep in mind that these "understandable requests" reach far beyond parents "protecting" their kids (from WHAT?) to, well, just about every kind of folks "protecting" everything from buildings to telephone poles (yes, I had a vigilante try to stop me from photographing a telephone pole). The appropriate response is "I understand your concern, but my intentions are entirely harmless, and my activity is perfectly legal. If you would like to call a police officer, she or he will explain it to you."
Calling the cops was certainly not her best move, far from it, but he had options too and having a right does mean you have to enforce it no matter what. I hope cops give you the highest fine they can each time you get stopped for speeding or any traffic violation and check your car for any little detail they can because well you know it, they do have the absolute right to do so! But do they? Do they stop you for going 1 mile over the speed? they don't, but they certainly can and you probably fail more speed traps for that one mile than you know on a weekly basis. Relax dude, enjoy life, it's not that complicated.
WTF are you talking about? Speeding tickets?Do you even know what the topic is? I'm starting to feel guilty, arguing with a guy who can't even put three thoughts together in a cogent argument. It's like wrestling with a puppy. Only less lovable.
Oh my, is this still going on? Is he still trying to defend her actions? It's been more than a year. Now he's comparing someone who did nothing wrong, to a police officer whose job it is to enforce the law, keep the roads safe and stop someone who is endangering others.
It's not even funny any more. One can only hope that somewhere down the line, he realized he had no valid arguments, but could not back out and just went with it.