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

[editor]

I am.

I was out for three hours this morning and took some 200 pictures. I felt no need to take pictures of anything that had the mental capacity to give, or not give, consent to having its image taken.

So you just took pictures of empty streets and lonely landscapes then? Bit difficult when you live in a busy city full of people.

And would your no photography rule extend to, say, taking photos of a policeman abusing his power and beating up a peaceful protester?

Thing is, you're being photographed and filmed every day by private and police CCTV cameras anyway.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In America loads of schools have their own sports playing fields actually. But are you against the principle that people can photograph what they like in public places (subject to the obvious restrictions)?

Well even you are subjecting it to restrictions. In this instance I think kids should be able to play football without being photographed if their parents don't want them photographed. In general, absent a good reason why their wishes should not be respected, I think people's requests not to be photographed should be respected.

 

[editor]

Well even you are subjecting it to restrictions. In this instance I think kids should be able to play football without being photographed if their parents don't want them photographed. In general, absent a good reason why their wishes should not be respected, I think people's requests not to be photographed should be respected.

Not sure anyone is arguing that photographers should be free to keep on taking pictures of children when they've been specifically asked to stop. I'm certainly not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure anyone is arguing that photographers should be free to keep on taking pictures of children when they've been specifically asked to stop. I'm certainly not.

Ok so you're against the principle that people can photograph what they want in public places?

I'm confused.

 

[Poot]

I think everyone broadly agrees that it's a bit of a grey area and that a protest is different to a kiddie football match. And that people should stop if asked by parents. I don't know why everyone's arguing. We're all mostly in agreement.

 

[editor]

Ok so you're against the principle that people can photograph what they want in public places?

I'm confused.

Subject to common sense, courtesy and legal restrictions, yes. I thought I made that clear.

But the principle of being able to photograph what you see in public places is important, no?

 

[Saul Goodman]

So you just took pictures of empty streets and lonely landscapes then? Bit difficult when you live in a busy city full of people.

I took pictures of double decker frogs on my last walk. I find them more interesting than other people's kids.

And would your no photography rule extend to, say, taking photos of a policeman abusing his power and beating up a peaceful protester?

No. It's in the public's interest, so it's fair game, obviously. But you already know this.

Thing is, you're being photographed and filmed every day by private and police CCTV cameras anyway.

That's just whatabouttery, and unless you rob a jewellers', your face will likely never be seen by another human, and certainly not posted on the internet for anyone to see.

 

[kebabking]

So you just took pictures of empty streets and lonely landscapes then? Bit difficult when you live in a busy city full of people.

And would your no photography rule extend to, say, taking photos of a policeman abusing his power and beating up a peaceful protester?

Thing is, you're being photographed and filmed every day by private and police CCTV cameras anyway.

when my images are taken by CCTV there's a data controller who is subject to the law - some randomer taking pictures of whoever they like is under no such constraint.

if you wish to take pictures of coppers waloping soap-dodgers i'm sure that the judge will accept your public interest defence - just taking images of total randomers without their consent however has no public interest at stake. you're - perhaps as the name suggests - taking something that doesn't belong to you without the consent of its owner, and with absolutely no understanding of, or interest in, the possible consequences of publishing that image.

if you are simply unable to exercise your interests without having regard to the wishes of those it effects, then you need a new hobby. modelling perhaps...

 

[scifisam]

Not sure anyone is arguing that photographers should be free to keep on taking pictures of children when they've been specifically asked to stop. I'm certainly not.

Duncan seems to be. And this photographer was asked twice, politely, not to take photos, and still didn't say OK, I won't, and he's the one being defended. So you can see how it might look like defending people taking photos even after being asked to stop. There was never any doubt in my mind that you, Fridge or Roy would stop taking photos if asked to, because you're not arseholes (even though I asked whether you guys would stop and nobody responded), but that's what you were defending (which is why I asked).

Taking photos in public spaces should stay just as legal as it is now, but when you're talking about someone taking photos of a kids' football game in a park, there's no need to compare it to taking photos of a cop beating up a protester. They're obviously very, very different situations.

FWIW Hillary Duff was a pretty big teen star in the US in the early 00s, and probably had a lot of harassment from paparazzi because female teen stars were often hounded in really nasty ways by paps, so she might well be a little more sensitive to this than other people now she's out of the limelight and taking her kids to play sports in a normal way.

 

[editor]

Duncan seems to be. And this photographer was asked twice, politely, not to take photos, and still didn't say OK, I won't, and he's the one being defended.

The main problem for me is that we only have her side of the story - who knows what was said before she decided to film - and that she choose to humiliate the guy via her powerful online presence.

For all we know, he may have stopped straight after, but wanted to put her straight regarding the law.

 

[xenon]

I think everyone broadly agrees that it's a bit of a grey area and that a protest is different to a kiddie football match. And that people should stop if asked by parents. I don't know why everyone's arguing. We're all mostly in agreement.

You ask this now, after all this time on Urban.

Duncan seems to be. And this photographer was asked twice, politely, not to take photos, and still didn't say OK, I won't, and he's the one being defended. So you can see how it might look like defending people taking photos even after being asked to stop. There was never any doubt in my mind that you, Fridge or Roy would stop taking photos if asked to, because you're not arseholes (even though I asked whether you guys would stop and nobody responded), but that's what you were defending (which is why I asked).

Taking photos in public spaces should stay just as legal as it is now, but when you're talking about someone taking photos of a kids' football game in a park, there's no need to compare it to taking photos of a cop beating up a protester. They're obviously very, very different situations.

FWIW Hillary Duff was a pretty big teen star in the US in the early 00s, and probably had a lot of harassment from paparazzi because female teen stars were often hounded in really nasty ways by paps, so she might well be a little more sensitive to this than other people now she's out of the limelight and taking her kids to play sports in a normal way.

Yeah, seems pretty obvious really. Only an arsehole noncey or elsewise, would carry on taking photos of people, never mind kids, when asked not to. Caviets at an event, not a Police line up etc.

I was at an art exhibition yesterday. All adults, getting a guided tour round. We were asked if someone could take pics of us to publicize future events etc. Of course this is different to a park but the similarity is permission is usually saught when asking if you can take pictures of a group of people doing stuff and respected when it's denied. Quite obviously, people are going to be a bit more sensitive about random people taking pictures of kids.

 

[scifisam]

The main problem for me is that we only have her side of the story - who knows what was said before she decided to film - and that she choose to humiliate the guy via her powerful online presence.

For all we know, he may have stopped straight after, but wanted to put her straight regarding the law.

Presumably he did stop straight after, yeah. It would be really weird if he'd just kept on taking photos anyway. Twice is usually enough for a no, though. There's a principle of allowing public photography, and there's a principle of accepting that if someone asks you not to photograph them or their kids, in a situation like this, you shouldn't have to be asked twice. You could even explain the law after agreeing to stop. (Though it's unlikely that a female celeb doesn't already know the law when it comes to photographers taking photos of their kids - it's allowed and sometimes gets really horrible - and she didn't say it was illegal).

She was calm and polite - can't see how there can have been much interaction before she started to film.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

As someone who works with kids, unless he’s cleared it with the team coach or similar, I do think it’s off.

I’m sure he was innocent but not sure why he wouldn’t get permission first or photograph an adult game.

Yep. 100% in agreement with you.
We had someone taking photos of kids on the school yard from across the road
They were approached and told to leave or the police would be called.

Dont care what the guy in the Hilary Duff story is saying. He is living in a fucking bubble if he thinks its ok to take photos of kids anywhere without parental permission.

As for Duff posting her video of the man... he can't jolly well complain now can he? If he is so into public photos etc.
Live by the camera...die by the camera.

 

[Riklet]

It's totally off and weird to photograph random kids playing sport without talking to anyone beforehand. Maybe it's legal but I do think she has a point.

It's also sad that suspect behaviour is assumed so easily, but for my own protection I would never casually photograph random children in that way without it being much clearer what was going on.

 

[Ted Striker]

The main issue is photographers think a camera gives them a divine excuse to be invasive as they like.

Noncey or not, its rude AF, and the fellow photographers again circling the wagons to excuse this sort of privacy invasion "oh, but its art..." (followed up by the common-sense bypassing "so we're never allowed to take pictures of people EVER?! Is that what you want...") does them no credit.

I had this person start sketching me on the tube once. It was clear what she was doing, (and, ftr, id bloody love an artists sketch of me...I'd even stay still for it!) but apparently asking the subjects permission was beyond her. I challenged her, more on the "wtf are you doing?!" angle, more than being fully aggrieved and got off at the next stop. It was really off putting!

 

[editor]

It's totally off and weird to photograph random kids playing sport without talking to anyone beforehand. Maybe it's legal but I do think she has a point.

She does has a point, but humiliating him via her personal social media channel was out of order, as are all these pathetic and unfounded 'noncey' accusations.

 

[Duncan2]

The main issue is photographers think a camera gives them a divine excuse to be invasive as they like.

Noncey or not, its rude AF, and the fellow photographers again circling the wagons to excuse this sort of privacy invasion "oh, but its art..." (followed up by the common-sense bypassing "so we're never allowed to take pictures of people EVER?! Is that what you want...") does them no credit.

I had this person start sketching me on the tube once. It was clear what she was doing, (and, ftr, id bloody love an artists sketch of me...I'd even stay still for it!) but apparently asking the subjects permission was beyond her. I challenged her, more on the "wtf are you doing?!" angle, more than being fully aggrieved and got off at the next stop. It was really off putting!

This is the problem isn't it?Its the thin end of the wedge.

 

[editor]

The main issue is photographers think a camera gives them a divine excuse to be invasive as they like.

They really don't all think that, you know.

 

[editor]

And so it goes on:

Photographer Darryl Wilkins has reportedly filed a lawsuit against celebrity Hilary Duff and talk show host Wendy Williams, accusing the two of defamation by suggesting that Wilkins could be a child predator after Duff filmed Wilkins photographing her son’s soccer game in a public park.

Photographer Sues Hilary Duff for Defamation Over 'Creep' Claim

Photographer Darryl Wilkins has reportedly filed a lawsuit against celebrity Hilary Duff and talk show host Wendy Williams, accusing the two of defamation

petapixel.com

 

[scifisam]

And so it goes on:

Photographer Sues Hilary Duff for Defamation Over 'Creep' Claim

Photographer Darryl Wilkins has reportedly filed a lawsuit against celebrity Hilary Duff and talk show host Wendy Williams, accusing the two of defamation

petapixel.com

If he has money he wants to throw away, go him.

 

[Duncan2]

Would of thought it could be of some public interest though they do say hard cases make bad law.

 

[weltweit]

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

I don't have a dog in the fight and can to an extent see both sides.

 

[scifisam]

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

I don't have a dog in the fight and can to an extent see both sides.

In the extremely unlikely event that he wins for her saying that he was a "creep" and that supposedly being the same as her suggesting he was a child predator, we're all totally fucked.

 

[weltweit]

In the extremely unlikely event that he wins for her saying that he was a "creep" and that supposedly being the same as her suggesting he was a child predator, we're all totally fucked.

But what else could she have meant? apart from that he had an unhealthy interest in other people's children?

 

[scifisam]

But what else could she have meant? apart from that he had an unhealthy interest in other people's children?

That it was a generally creepy thing to do. It crept her out. And it's clearly a matter of opinion, rather than a statement of fact.

 

[editor]

That it was a generally creepy thing to do. It crept her out. And it's clearly a matter of opinion, rather than a statement of fact.

She's absolutely entitled to have that opinion and to say it to his face, if she likes.

It gets problematic when it's a celeb with millions of followers and she uses that video to completely belittle and destroy the guy's reputation on social media when he has legally done absolutely nothing wrong.

But there's no winners here. Both have acted unwisely in my opinion.

 

[scifisam]

She's absolutely entitled to have that opinion and to say it to his face, if she likes.

It gets problematic when it's a celeb with millions of followers and she uses that video to completely belittle and destroy the guy's reputation on social media when he has legally done absolutely nothing wrong.

But there's no winners here. Both have acted unwisely in my opinion.

Yeah, i disagree with that opinion but I can see where you're coming from. It's not worthy of a court case though - she really did not say what he's claiming. He's not going to win, not going to get a better reputation, and he'll be even more broke than before.

 

[editor]

Yeah, i disagree with that opinion but I can see where you're coming from. It's not worthy of a court case though - she really did not say what he's claiming. He's not going to win, not going to get a better reputation, and he'll be even more broke than before.

I was on the receiving end of a relatively minor Twitter hate storm once, and it really can affect your mental health badly, and for some people cause long-lasting trauma. Their disagreement was a personal conflict of opinion and inviting your 16 million followers to put in the boot over such a small incident is a really shitty thing to do, IMO.

 

[scifisam]

I was on the receiving end of a relatively minor Twitter hate storm once, and it really can affect your mental health badly, and for some people cause long-lasting trauma. Their disagreement was a personal conflict of opinion and inviting your 16 million followers to put in the boot over such a small incident is a really shitty thing to do, IMO.

But not in a way that's ever going to stand up in court.

 

[editor]

But not in a way that's ever going to stand up in court.

Certainly not against her powerful lawyers. But since when was the outcome of a US court the absolute decider of whether something is morally defensible or not?

I think the photographer was a bit of a twat for not immediately apologising and moving on - even when he had done nothing wrong - and I have zero respect for this rich woman using her powerful position to try and wreck this guy's life.