US celeb Hilary Duff attacks photographer online for taking photos at football game

[Saul Goodman]

I was trying to give you a socially acceptable way out from an absurdly overgeneralised statement, where you could back down from something indefensible without losing face, but you don't want to take it. OK, sure.

A way out? I don't need a way out. It's not my fault you can't see the difference between photographing the people in the pictures you posted and photographing 7 year old children. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nobody comes out of this particular story very well. The bloke should have asked, imo, while Duff was also being out of line plastering his face on social media.

 

[editor]

Or I could be recognising the difference between vulnerable children and teenagers acting as adults.

Sorry, which 'vulnerable children' are you on about?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think we've got sidetracked by one particular idiot here. I'm much more concerned about real people holding this opinon, for real.

 

[weltweit]

Stranger danger, which seems to be what Hilary Duff was concerned about - he didn't have a kid in the game - is actually less of a risk to kids than members of their own family. So in fact it could be family members with cameras that could pose more of a risk to the kids, their own kids that is.

Which sort of sets the argument that you can photograph if you have a kid in the game on its head.

This photographer does not really bother me, it was a football game? US football or soccer I don't know, it seems very unlikely he would have been up to no good.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Sorry, which 'vulnerable children' are you on about?

The ones who aren't teenagers.

 

[kebabking]

I think anyone who doesn't grasp the intrinsic difference between kids playing sport in public, and a demo that is deliberately designed to garner media attention, probably needs their heads examined.

Personally I'm uncomfortable with people taking pictures of my children, if we go to a public event and we see someone taking general pictures of the event, rather than just someone taking pictures of their own kids with ours just randomly in the background, we'll give them a swerve. Our kids don't have their pictures on the school website, their pictures don't go on Facebook or Instagram.

There is a nuance here - for me, a picture of a scene (say a street festival) which contains children, or adults who haven't consented to having their picture taken is different to picture of a specific child within that scene. So, in the OP case, taking a picture of a football match with shows 50yards of pitch and dozen kids is different to singling out a specific child and taking a picture of that one child - the first is a picture of a football game which happens to involve children, the second is a picture of a child.

Despite that nuance, I absolutely take the view that my image (or my children's, or anyone else's) is not available for others to use as they wish - I find the assumption/assertion that it is extremely bad manners, and that to continue to photograph it despite being asked not to is incredibly offensive.

 

[editor]

The ones who aren't teenagers.

So now you're back to the accusation that anyone taking pictures of 12 year old children or under without express permission of the parents - regardless of context - are 'noncey', yes? So is Roy Reed noncey in your opinion?

 

[Saul Goodman]

So now you're back to the accusation that anyone taking pictures of 12 year old children or under without express permission of the parents - regardless of context - are 'noncey', yes? So is Roy Reed noncey in your opinion?

I've no idea. I've never met him.
And they were 7, not 12.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Despite that nuance, I absolutely take the view that my image (or my children's, or anyone else's) is not available for others to use as they wish - I find the assumption/assertion that it is extremely bad manners, and that to continue to photograph it despite being asked not to is incredibly offensive.

Yeah, and that last bit especially. If you're asked to stop, you stop. No ifs or buts or protestations. Respect people's wishes.

 

[kebabking]

So now you're back to the accusation that anyone taking pictures of 12 year old children or under without express permission of the parents - regardless of context - are 'noncey', yes? So is Roy Reed noncey in your opinion?

I'm struggling think of another explanation for taking pictures of seven year olds you don't know without their parents permission...

 

[editor]

I've no idea. I've never met him.
And they were 7, not 12.

So by your earlier definition, hes definitely noncey then. Or would you now like to retract that and admit you were talking bollocks.

 

[editor]

I'm struggling think of another explanation for taking pictures of seven year olds you don't know without their parents permission...

Loads of people take pictures of the kids having kickabouts by the stands at Dulwich Hamlet. It documents the day and shows people that it's a family friendly club. I don't recall anyone complaining.

 

[RoyReed]

I'm struggling think of another explanation for taking pictures of seven year olds you don't know without their parents permission...

How about making a record of a beautiful day out flying kites!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Loads of people take pictures of the kids having kickabouts by the stands at Dulwich Hamlet. It documents the day and shows people that it's a family friendly club. I don't recall anyone complaining.

If you were taking pics of a bunch of kids you don't know playing and someone asked you not to, you'd stop, though, right? Doesn't have to mean they think you're a nonce or anything. The whole point is that they don't know you.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm struggling think of another explanation for taking pictures of seven year olds you don't know without their parents permission...

If you really are struggling there is something seriously wrong with you - the assumption that nobody could ever have any contact with or interest in children unless they are a paedophile is really disturbingly broken.

 

[editor]

If you were taking pics of a bunch of kids you don't know playing and someone asked you not to, you'd stop, though, right? Doesn't have to mean they think you're a nonce or anything. The whole point is that they don't know you.

Yes of course, but that's not the point Saul is pursing here, where he is clearly calling posters here 'noncey.'

And as for the original photographer that this Duff 'celeb' decided to humiliate on social media, he may well have stopped as well, but wanted to point out his legal right to do what he was doing while she was shoving her camera in his face and publishing the video without permission.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Yes of course, but that's not the point Saul is pursing here, where he is clearly calling posters here 'noncey.'

I didn't call anyone here noncey. You did that.

 

[kebabking]

If you really are struggling there is something seriously wrong with you - the assumption that nobody could ever have any contact with or interest in children unless they are a paedophile.

You can be interested in whatever you like, but you don't get to have contact (and that includes taking their pictures) with children without their parents permission.

And no means no...

 

[editor]

You can be interested in whatever you like, but you don't get to have contact (and that includes taking their pictures) with children without their parents permission.

And no means no...

So no one can take photos of community events, sports crowds, street scenes etc that include children unless the photographer has somehow managed to locate the parents and asked then permission individually?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I didn't call anyone here noncey. You did that.

You literally used the term "noncey".

 

[editor]

I didn't call anyone here noncey. You did that.

You made it very, very clear what kind of photographer came under your definition of 'noncey' and photographers like Roy, Fridgemagnet and me come under that definition. So are we 'noncey' or not in your opinion? A straight yes or no will do.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You can be interested in whatever you like, but you don't get to have contact (and that includes taking their pictures) with children without their parents permission.

And no means no...

...that doesn't make any sense. What? Use some real world examples.

 

[Saul Goodman]

You literally used the term "noncey".

I didn't apply it to anybody here, which is what I was accused of doing. Somebody else did that.

 

[Saul Goodman]

...that doesn't make any sense. What? Use some real world examples.

The OP is a perfect example.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I didn't apply it to anybody here, which is what I was accused of doing. Somebody else did that.

"Nobody should be taking photos of other people's children without express permission. It may not be illegal but it's noncey as fuck."

I took photos of other people's chldren without express permission. I posted them. So I am a nonce eh?

Answer me you coward.

 

[editor]

I didn't apply it to anybody here, which is what I was accused of doing. Somebody else did that.

You applied it to all photographers who take pictures of kids without the parents' permission. You were quite explicit in your definition.

Nobody should be taking photos of other people's children without express permission. It may not be illegal but it's noncey as fuck.

 

[Duncan2]

We don't I think know where this football match was taking place.Was it on school premises or in a public park.Obviously if it was the former the guy was bang out of order,if it was a public park then there is an element of volenti non fit injuria isn't there..You must expect that in a public park there will be strangers i.e members of the public taking pictures and your child might therefore be in shot.If you can't handle that keep them at home.This is massively precious imo. As editor pointed out this guy offered i.d and as he himself pointed out he was acting within the law.He doesn't have to prove to the twats on instagram that he is not a paedophile and to assume otherwise on that evidence is indeed more than a bit bonkers.

 

[kebabking]

So no one can take photos of community events, sports crowds, street scenes etc that include children unless the photographer has somehow managed to locate the parents and asked then permission individually?

well, that would be ideal...

again, its your inability to understand nuance: if you take a picture of a scene (lets say its the Bewdley duck race on New Years Day) and that picture contains a hundred random, not-particularly-indentifiable people, 50 of whom are children, then thats fine (ish), i don't think you should publish that picture (though, and here's another bit of nuance, if it was a thousand random people, with far less identifiable detail of the individuals within that crowd, i have no problem with publishing...), but if your picture is of one, or two, or three, or a dozen children without their parents consent, with the event/context as very much a background detail and the images of the children being the centrepiece/focus of the image, then its not just the publishing of that image that would be wrong, but the taking it, and presumably storing it.

 

[kebabking]

...that doesn't make any sense. What? Use some real world examples.

how can it possibly not make sense?