A debate about the morality of taking a photo of a child in public has been ignited online after a customer reported a stranger taking pictures of her son without permission at a branch of Starbucks.
As reported by NBC 10 Philadelphia, the mother of the child reported the incident to a Starbucks employee but was allegedly told that the man had been there taking pictures all week and that it wasn’t within her authority to ask him to leave.
While immoral, taking a photo of a child in a public space is not illegal, as confirmed by Michael Hendricks, Police Detective for East Norriton Township - the town in which the incident took place. However, the culprit has now been identified, and an investigation is currently underway as to the motives of his picture-taking. Hendricks advised the public that although indeed not illegal, these sorts of actions should be reported to police.
Starbucks has also commented on the situation, clarifying that if a customer isn’t creating a “welcoming experience” for others, staff reserve the right to ask them to leave.
The district manager of the store in question had “no comment” when quizzed by NBC10 as to why staff didn’t object to the man’s actions.
The investigation continues.
Wait, I thought Starbucks employees were no longer able to have people trespassed.
Sitting waiting for a client while black and taking photos of other peoples children: obviously different. Do people really need to be told that taking pictures of people's kids without permission might land you in trouble or the hospital? I wonder if the photographer was using a smartphone or xSLR. If the latter, even creepier.
"Sitting waiting for a client while ̶̶̶b̶̶̶l̶̶̶a̶̶̶c̶̶̶k̶̶̶ not being a paying customer.." FIFY
Several years ago in a Starbucks in Las Vegas Nevada, I was taking some usual selfies and the barista told me pictures were not allowed inside because of the copyrighted artwork on the walls. Go figure.
I was told it was all about not wanting their menus copied... So I snapped a picture with my phone. Lol.
Surprised it was labeled "immoral" in this article.
Yeah, that's a bit harsh. It might be questionable, but it's debatable to think that it's decidedly immoral.
If some guy was taking pictures of my daughter without so much as an "excuse me" leaves me wondering at motivation. If they're not asking, I'd assume the worse.
Taking a picture of someone elses kid is weird, but I think people overeact and assume automatically that someone is a pervert or pedophile. Sometimes photographers can be naive and overly ambitious when taking photos of other people. That is some of the difficulty today in street photography. Maybe the child was just slightly in frame of a wider shot, maybe he was a pedophile taking photos for his own perversion. We'll never know.
There is an investigation underway, so we probably *will* know...
We Westerners make fun of "primitive" cultures that believe that cameras can steal your souls then attempt to legitimize similar beliefs in our culture...
As Brandon said, taking a pic of someone else's kid is a bit weird but this is quite an overreaction. Asking permission from and speaking to a parent first is probably a good idea.
Sad as it might be that pedophiles are taking pictures of children on our streets, let's not make it yet more difficult to photograph people in our public spaces with investigations like this which have a chilling effect. It is not a crime (yet) to photograph a child in public in the USA. Immoral? That's preposterous. Rude? Quite possibly. What about the situation where a number of people are in a single shot and some are children? Shall we be required to get a release signed for every child? This is coming if we don't demand a realistic view as to what is and is not practicable in street shooting.
Starbucks isn't a public space.
I'm pretty sure when people talk about a 'public place' in this context, they're talking about places open to the public, or situations where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Go to Starbucks and take off your clothes. Dance around and scream like a chicken. You'll discover it's not a private place for sure.
That type of behavior would also not be acceptable in a public restroom, yet you still can't photograph in there.
Just a no-no for me. As a parent, I'm sympathetic to that. I'll do it for my kid's sports teams, but the parents are around and if they would ever say no, I'd be understanding and apologetic. No is no. I send pics around to the parents on a closed facebook group and through google drive, so they know what is up and they love the shots. Otherwise, no random kids for me. Creepy.
Immoral? Did you drop that in there to stir things up enough for another article?
Do you have children?
I have a kid. It doesn't seem immoral to me when someone takes a pic of a kid in a public place, per se.
There could easily be relevant details that we're missing here. It does seem weird to me that he was there taking pictures of kids for a better part of the week, so without a good explanation for that, there is a reason to be suspicious.
I think it's probably immoral because deviating from the social norm in this context would inflict discomfort on most parents without good cause. It doesn't sound like this was a journalist or even an artist working on a project. Just sounds like a creep. Our privacy laws are outdated for the realities we're facing as a society today. Having a high-quality image of someone today uploaded on Facebook could easily reveal that person's identity and possibly where they live and go to school.
Also, we're talking about minors, who cannot decide to go out in public or not for themselves, so they cannot consent to these potential risks themselves.
If a total stranger took an unsolicited picture of me in a public place, I'd feel uncomfortable and would most probably challenge it. To do so to a child who likely doesn't appreciate the implications, let alone is unable to speak up, is indeed immoral, in my personal opinion.
I agree Jack. If there is no ill intent there should be no insecurity about asking permission first or at least some form of verbal contact. I've taken lots of photos of strangers and their children, but not without communication and permission. If they decline then at least it's a pleasant exchange and not a police investigation.
Sure I can. A lot of moral issues hinge on the context of a situation.
I do a lot of street photography in the middle of NYC. The irony is, I hate being part of an image when the tables are turned. So, whatever.
If and when I see that I'm about to be captured in a rare pic, I'll flip the bird and pretend I'm scratching the middle of my forehead with the aforementioned digit. Ah yes, the irony.
"If a total stranger took an unsolicited picture of me in a public place, I'd feel uncomfortable "
I've had people take my photo. I don't get what the big deal is. Street photography pretty much revolves around taking photos of strangers, including children. Some famous photos of kids probably wouldn't exist in today's society, one example is Diane Arbus's famous grenade kid.. double whammy, kid and weapon!
People also used to think children who reported sexual abuse back then were imagining things. If a dad was beating his children, neighbors thought it wasn't any of their business.
A lot has changed with regard to how we take care of children today. There's no comparison to what a picture meant in Diane Arbus' time to today. Today you can upload a photo of someone and Facebook or another site that use facial recognition could provide you with tons of personal information about that person. If someone takes your picture, you're a grown man who can stick up for himself. A child can't. Nor can a child decide to go out to places where they can legally be photographed.
I love street photography but pretty much keep kids out of it unless it's some sort of kids type function like a parade or something. I know it's legal, but it's not worth getting a parent bent out of shape. I know what my intentions are, but most parents don't. Besides, I'm an old geezer and not quite as quick on my feet as I once was. :-)
The guy was there for an entire week doing this according to the article. This isn't someone who just snapped a shot of a cute kid at a parade. If asking permission beforehand would ruin the shot, one can always ask afterwards and offer to delete the shot if the parents object. Doesn't sound like he was doing that.
Starbucks, despite the recent controversy, is not legally a public space. This isn't just guys sitting at a table waiting for someone. This is interacting with other customers in an impolite way.
*deleted because I don't want any part of people's emotional idiocy*
Immoral? No wonder we have Child Protective Services investigating parents who allow their children to play outside alone—Someone might take the kids picture!
I think it was just Dunkin' Donuts franchise owner and he didn't even have a memory card in the camera.
Morality? Culprit? Incident? I’ve lived in CHina for 15 years and people take photos of kids all the time. Their own and others. My kids get it al teh tiem. They love photogprahy here and they love kids. It’s all innocent and understandable. What is worng with you people?
Weird but not illegal. On both counts it should remain this way.
.
It seems to me that we lack a discussion of moral standards as they vary hugely across time and place. What is moral at one time becomes immoral at another. (Just think Prohibition and Flower Power.) What is acceptable in one country is an offence in another. (Just try kissing in public in Dubai or hold hands in Saudi Arabia.)
As a Dane (and a father) I find it hard to understand how taking a picture of a clothed child can be seen as "immoral" — have we really reached a state of mind where just the thought that somebody could take an "unnatural" interest in a picture of a child makes us call the police when people are engaged in an otherwise legal activity?
That said, it is "interesting" that the photographer apparently had been taking such pictures for a week.
"allegedly told that the man had been there taking pictures all week and that it wasn’t within her authority to ask him to leave"
But black dudes can be trespassed while waiting for friends ?
Nowhere does it say he was there taking photo's of children all week. People jumping to conclusions again. "the man had been there taking pictures all week" perhaps he was taking pictures of the tables and chairs?
Taking photos of children is not only not illegal, it is NOT IMMORAL either. The guy is not a “culprit”. Talk about judging before knowing the facts. You’d have to know what the man’s motives were first. (And possibly check out his photos.) Some of the best photos ever are of children!