If you're really concerned about it (as I would be), contact the guy and make sure he understands that he does not have permission to post or use your son's photos for any purpose, period. If he's really a pro, he should know not to photograph a child without parental permission. If he doesn't cooperate, you may need a lawyer to pursue it further.

Just out of curiosity, did you Google the guy to see if anyone else has had a bad experience with him?

He may be on the up-and-up, and the world is a bit paranoid these days, but he certainly handled your situation poorly......

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, did you Google the guy to see if anyone else has had a bad experience with him?

He may be on the up-and-up, and the world is a bit paranoid these days, but he certainly handled your situation poorly......

i didnt think to google him.... i hope he is on the up and up. I dont think i am being too paranoid, but i agree that the world is alot more paranoid these days. I wont get into detail but i had a cousin who fell victim to a predator of the worst kind and i wouldnt wish the life long reprocussions of that on my worst enemy. I guess i am a bit over protective but i think its rightfully so. looking back, i think i handled it poorly too, so i am hoping we can just handle it and be done with it, although tactfulness is something i havent been known for over the yrs, lol. I did avert a bigger situation though as the 20-30 people I was there with for our gathering were ready to beat the guy within an inch of his life for it. Its hard to convey the "creepy" factor that was present there while writing here on the forum, but the more i thought about it something wasnt right. I HOPE i am wrong. at least i was keeping an eye on my kid and had him close by.i saw him as he stopped and snapped one pic, then he hurridly took another that he was trying to "pose" him on while i was headed over there. I think thats what made me the most concerned, because i feel a legit photographer would have not done this at all, but at least stopped when he saw me coming and yelling, not tried to get another before moving on quickly.. there were ALOT of unattended kids there and I hope none of them fell victim to something bad.. had this person been doing this with my son in a less than public area (lots of wooded parts to this park) there would likely been a news story about what happened/his fate. I am still contemplating calling the police to see if a report should be made. I think his response will have alot to do with it. I really dont want to crucify an innocent person, but innocent people dont behave like that usually......

For commercial purposes you need a signed release which grants you the right to use a person's picture and it sure looks like this would be commercial, so go after this piece of low life.

Second, if not for commercial purposes, I'm not sure what the legal issues are but manners would dictate that you don't start photographing a child as the main subject of your shots without express consent of a parent or guardian. Another reason to go after this "gentleman".

This guys is a disaster to happen, if only to be beat up by a rightfully upset parent.

well, his website and buisness card have absolutely no contact info on it other than his web gallery... It does allow you to leave a comment on each of his pictures and "sign" a guestbook, so i just cut and pasted a paragraph from notepad onto the comments for about 50 pictures in his favorites gallery and in his guestbook stating he should have asked for a model relaese and that as a matter of principle i will deny him one if asked. i also recommended he destroy the files/negs of my son so that he is not tempted to post them, as i will be monitoring his website. Then i signed his guestbook again with a private entry including my email for him to confirm he recieved my message, hopefully he will reply so I can at least have proof that i told him and he acknowledged if this goes any further. at the least i will know he got it when i see all of the comments deleted from his galleries! BTW, I googled him and several various searches to try and narrow it down, but he just happens to have an EXTREMELY common first and last name that is also shared with an older tv actor, so the shortest list i could get was @120,000 hits.....

"reminding him of privacy rights of peiople, because i think its genuinely a case of this guy doesnt know WTF he's doing... any suggestions on this will be helpful, as i dont want to be a total a-hole but dont mind setting this guy straight.... "

This overall discussion seems to indicate most don't have a clear and accurate understanding of what rights of privacy are really supported by the law. There is a legal concept regarding privacy limited by the logical concept of an expectation of privacy. As far as I have seen in news of court cases regarding privacy rights, when a person is in public, like at a park, you do not have a right to expect privacy. In other words once you enter the public domain there should be no expectation of enjoying privacy. So if someone takes a picture of you in a park it is really no different than if someone looks at you.

Of course if the photographer then reproduces the picture of you for commercial gain, then your rights have been infringed. But if the picture is just shared on a social networking site and no return is sought or expected, I doubt that the lack of a release can be pursued successfully, because no monetary advantage was gained at your expense.

Because the subject might be a minor I don't believe by itself really makes a difference to how privacy is defined by law and what expectations of privacy you can legitimately expect.

The real issue in this kind of situation is the expectation of common social courtesy. And that is fortunately not a matter that the law has any interest in until it evolves into some kind of physical exchange.

"Street Photography", recording in documentary fashion what public life is about has been a part of the photography experience from the earliest days. Images made by the likes of Cartier Bresson have been printed in newspapers and journals depicting people in public going about their daily lives. Photography in this sense is just another way of seeing. And observation has long been recorded and reproduced by artists before photographers. Some caught in public doing something embarrassing will of course be offended, but whose responsibility is that - if you are going to do something you would not be proud of, maybe you should stay in your home where you can legitimately expect privacy.

David, I agree with you with regard to what we know as HCB-style "street photography", something we've probably all done. But, I think in this case, the photographer crossed the line when he approached the boy and tried to pose him without seeking parental permission. It speaks of more than just casual interest, for whatever reason, and places it under that universal caveat we all received as kids: Don't Talk To Strangers. I think the father has not only a right to be concerned in this case, but a duty. Maybe I'm one of those paranoid types I alluded to earlier on, and I blame that attitude on twenty years with the San Diego Sheriff's Department.......

I understand what you are sayin efx but it also reinforces the issue I have here, that this is a HUGE grey area. I will be the first to acknowledge that in public, you are correct, no expectation of privacy is available. I myself have alot of photos with minors in them as consequential background items etc, but they are barely (if at all) identafiable and certainly werent posed or the subject of the photo. yes this guy asked my son to "pose" but he is 5 and no state allows nor is a 5 yr old capable of giving consent. regardless of what you have the right to do, sometimes its not the right thing to do. If your wife was there and this guy came up while you were in the porta potty and acted wierd, then started taking pics of her would you tell her he has the right to do that? I bet your view would be more simular to mine than of the freedom to take the pics. Point is I am probably overthinking this, and that because my son was watching me (you parents know what i am talking about, even when you think they arent looking, they know what you do!)I tried extra hard to be tactful and do the right thing by giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, hoping he learns to be a decent person that can resolve problems with others rationally and not a hooligan who handles everything like a 4 yr old. unfortuantely i think i may not have done all i should have in this situation. I do know he only took 2 shots and they werent anything that was inappropriate or deviant so I am probably just going to hope for the best at this point and know that if they do surface, its not anything you wouldnt see on a greeting card, and count my blessings that nothing bad happened to my son, because so many other parents have been less fortunate.

I think your reaction is all too common these days with the paranoid fear that has been generated by the media. And that is real exploitation!

Considering the extent to which populations have grown, children are probably safer today than they have ever been. The actual number of incidents of child abuse by a stranger is no greater today than it was when they first began recording data on it, and the incidence of abuse by a stranger is very small compared to sexual abuse of children by individuals known to the child and the family, and the highest incidence of abuse is at the hands of relatives. Although recent revelations of abuse at the hands of clergy just might have been the greatest threat just a few years ago.

What is different today compared to a generation or two ago is that the subject has become one that the public media, particularly television has found obtains huge audiences, like the abduction of a particularly cute blond Scottish girl in Portugal, and the missing teenager in Aruba, which is again in the news.

Of course a child cannot give consent for the commercial use of pictures. But in reality anyone who would attempt to use a picture of a child surreptitiously without parental consent today will not get very far. Any and probably every publisher is well aware of the necessity of having bona fide legally valid consent from parents or guardian of any minor, and will not publish without it. There is just too much risk and too little to gain to not be very strict and vigilant on this issue. So having any fear of commercial exploitation is not rational.

The popular paranoia these days that's been cranked up by the media just creates irrational fears, exacerbates social isolation, and probably does far more harm to children than whatever little protection it affords them.

I am old enough to have lived through some perilous times, and today when in reality life is threatened very little except some drunks behind the wheel of cars, the extent and intensity of fear that pervades everywhere is beyond any reason. It is too bad so many have forgotten or never heard what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when war began in 1941, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself"!

Quote:
I think your reaction is all too common these days with the paranoid fear that has been generated by the media. And that is real exploitation!

yes it may, i even admit i am probably over paranoid, but its my kid we are talking about, not my pet hamster. I think better safe than sorry is more than appropriate here...

Quote:
Considering the extent to which populations have grown, children are probably safer today than they have ever been. The actual number of incidents of child abuse by a stranger is no greater today than it was when they first began recording data on it, and the incidence of abuse by a stranger is very small compared to sexual abuse of children by individuals known to the child and the family, and the highest incidence of abuse is at the hands of relatives. Although recent revelations of abuse at the hands of clergy just might have been the greatest threat just a few years ago.

i will disagree with you on that... I would bet the ratios of unreported incidents vs. reported ones per capita have increased, but since they are unreported NO ONE knows the real extent of the problem. but you are right, we are more aware of it. just as we are with domestic violence and other issues that werent reported back in the day, we have no real idea of the scope of the problem. again, i feel erring on the side of caution where my kid is involved trumps statistics any day of the week...

Quote:
What is different today compared to a generation or two ago is that the subject has become one that the public media, particularly television has found obtains huge audiences, like the abduction of a particularly cute blond Scottish girl in Portugal, and the missing teenager in Aruba, which is again in the news.

while i dont subscribe to the nancy grace witch hunt agenda and i think alot of the msnbc "predator" show is for the camera more than justice, I bet the parents of the girls you just mentioned wished they had done something different or watched thier kids a bit closer. again, better safe than sorry nothing will bring back the innocence or life of a child....

Quote:
Of course a child cannot give consent for the commercial use of pictures. But in reality anyone who would attempt to use a picture of a child surreptitiously without parental consent today will not get very far. Any and probably every publisher is well aware of the necessity of having bona fide legally valid consent from parents or guardian of any minor, and will not publish without it. There is just too much risk and too little to gain to not be very strict and vigilant on this issue. So having any fear of commercial exploitation is not rational.

im not worried about seeing my kid on the next texas parks and wildlife billboard ad, you can not police the internet or one lone persons twisted fantasies like you can commercial laws and regulations in the legit buisness world. I know i can never control what happens to those 2 images now, but like i said before, i wonder if i shouldnt have done more given the circumstance. I know i did the right thing by setting a non-violent example for my son in regards to not forcefully insisting he hand over the film or delete the files right there, but did i do the right thing by not insisting it be done right then either? and in reality plenty of seemingly harmless people do pretty much whatever they want to do, because they can...

Quote:
The popular paranoia these days that's been cranked up by the media just creates irrational fears, exacerbates social isolation, and probably does far more harm to children than whatever little protection it affords them.

so if your underage kid had pics on myspace or something and an older guy was "chatting" with them but insisted it was harmless and he wanted to be friends etc because they were just so cute and he loves kids, you would shrug it off and not be paranoid? even more realistic, your 15 yr old daughter starts dating a 38yr old guy. as long as they dont have sex, its technically legal, but would you stand for it, even if they were behaving themselves? a point i would like to stress again, just because you have the right to do so, is it the right thing to do? i bet you you would be just as paranoid as i, and if you werent, i feel sorry for your kids, because thats neglect,plain and simple....

Quote:
I am old enough to have lived through some perilous times, and today when in reality life is threatened very little except some drunks behind the wheel of cars, the extent and intensity of fear that pervades everywhere is beyond any reason.

not sure what town or what side of that town you live in, but here (Dallas TX) thats bull$][!t..... age has nothing to do with specific moments in any given time period. every generation tells the next they walked uphill both ways in the snow to get to school, and while it was tough for you at the given time and circumstance in your life doesnt mean its easy for everyone afterwards. The neighborhood (a few blocks)i live in is notorious for its crime, and the park is no exception. Dallas in general is a crappy town for crime and has a huge problem with sex crimes and other violent acts. just go to the tx dps website and start searching for sex offenders. there are countless neighborhoods in Dallas that have multiple offenders living on every street. it is a rampant problem here and Dallas stays on the fbi's highest crime cities list for all sorts of stuff. I have seen way too much in my 30 some-odd yrs here and wil always be paranoid to keeping my children from being part of it. and while i agree more crimes like this are perpetrated by family/friends than strangers, plenty of strangers have probably never been caught either, so i dont count those statistics as 100% accurate. to say life is not threatened except by some drunks behind the wheel tells me you probably live in the middle of a wheat field in kansas or something like that. theres not enough room to post all the links to articles about the homocides and robberies that go on within a 10 mile radius me that were for stupid reasons (drugs mostly, if meth and crack hasnt made it to your town yet, you have a rude awakening when it does..) or over $20 in a cash register. I live where i live, and i know there are worse places to be and better, financially im not able to relocate to the country/rural areas or i would. the specialty type of work i do in my industry is found only in larger cities so i wouldnt be bettering myself by moving anyway. the only other option is a 2 or 3 hour commute and thats not an option either. so I will just continue to be paranoid about my kids until the situation changes.

Quote:
It is too bad so many have forgotten or never heard what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said when war began in 1941, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself"!

that was also from a day and time where we intered asians because we were at war with an asian country. If it were the same america and the same principles applied/were practical, we would have muslims intered right now until al-queda surrendered, but its not. again what you have the right to do isnt always the right thing to do.... this was initially about 50% rant and 50% question, but i make no apologies for being over cautious of my kid. I only hope i was over cautious enough.

This is really no place for a political debate, even though the incident involved does touch remotely on a matter of law, and social issues.

However, there was some question made of where I am coming from as the reason for my observations. And, I grew up in grade school years during the 2nd WW, in a frontier-like city on the Canadian plains, small enough that there were no separations from one side of the tracks and the other, and it was well before anyone imagined the "suburbia" that characterizes much of America today. All of the kids walked to school, in many cases several miles, and on their own.

My adult background is professional photography, but I also have degrees in social science and philosophy. I've lived and worked in many parts of the country, but for the longest period in Los Angeles, and from there travelled around a good part of the world on assignments.

I have seen many kids who have grown up in suburbia that were ill-prepared for life by having been over-protected and with too narrow a social experience and too little exposure to the diversity of life that is America, including a daughter now in her 40's who grew up with her mother and stepfather. This affect of over-protected, segregated suburban living is now even more intense and limiting to be a serious issue reflected by reports and studies of the millennial generation that has presented employers with serious problems of personnel management. Young people still tied to the apron strings, without generally acceptable social skills, and with inordinately and unrealistically high expectations. Like they all came from Woebegone, Minnesota where all the kids are above average.

But what I really take exception to is the idea that although the internment of West Coast Japanese in WW 2 was ill-advised, it was recognized as a breach of our Constitution, and although not fully compensated for the victims, should never have been repeated, but it was after 9-11 by a roundup of over 1500 Muslims by Federal authorities. Although some were here on expired visas and others had misdemeanor immigrations violations (and were deported), not one case was made nor a conviction obtained for terrorism or anything related to 9-11.

What I see of America today is a fearful people obsessed with security, compared to those who took FDR's entreaty to heart that there is nothing to fear but fear itself, and progressed courageously to advance America into greatness until the end of the 70's.

Quote:
But what I really take exception to is the idea that although the internment of West Coast Japanese in WW 2 was ill-advised, it was recognized as a breach of our Constitution, and although not fully compensated for the victims, should never have been repeated, but it was after 9-11 by a roundup of over 1500 Muslims by Federal authorities. Although some were here on expired visas and others had misdemeanor immigrations violations (and were deported), not one case was made nor a conviction obtained for terrorism or anything related to 9-11.

your quote was wishing america was at a time when we detained people simply for race/religios beliefs... i simply stated it wasnt the right thing to do, even though america at the time had the right to do so. we have further clarified the constitution's definition since then and approach things differently. wether we agree on it or not, ww2 was a time when we didnt have to fear anything but fear. the enemy was clear cut, and stopping them was a matter of military science and applying that knowledge logically to the battlefield and john q citizen could go on living like there was nothing to fear, because americans were good people as a whole. we live in a society now that can have the enemy living next door and anyone can be an internet criminal/perv in the privacy of thier world. things change and none of us can help it. Im not out to attack you, but i just dont see your point of view on the original issue. Ive respected and applied your photography advice with good results, though and thank you for it.

Gentlemen, can I make a suggestion? I think we've all spoken our thoughts, but we've strayed far afield from photography, and political discussions tend to be self-propagating. So, I propose we let this one lie and return to photography.

Of course, I'm not the moderator here, but that's never kept me from tossing my two cents in.....

Bill,

I realize there is no consensus possible and that most don't want any debate about anything. I find that with everyone sitting in their own camp glaring at the rest of the world, will we ever come together? It seem everyone is Nikon or Canon, film or digital, right or left, there seems there is no middle ground just a vast gulf of no-mans-land between everyone. Sad, and what's worse it's boring.

David, I guess the world is becoming more polarized as well as more paranoid, more of a "my way or the highway" attitude. Kind of reminds you of the cold war era, even the Vietnam era, doesn't it? Maybe the problem is our age. When you've seen the same crap happening in your lifetime, "been there, done that" gets to be more curse than cliche. Ah, well. Ford, Kodak Film and Canon forever! Everyone else, take a hike!

Yes, I have to agree with perspective, with I assume a little tongue in cheek; but what happened to the progress we were promised at every stage of the game, especially by the politicians?

Well, the last political promise I recall that resulted in real progress was JFK's commitment to put a man on the moon by the end of the '60s. It's kind of gone downhill since then.....

if you worry too much then ask him to delete all his images of your son.
by any chance can I have his web site?

Some may feel this is not the place for such a debate, but all you have said is true. Many of us do not want to face the fact we are responsible through our own fear for what we have created in our society. Over indulged children. little faith in people and through our fear we have given up many of our rights which maid our country great. Look around are we really proud of what we do as a nation of people? We can no longer feel free to say or to photograph with careful thought to what we do. We have taken creative thought and replaced it by the fear of the sky is falling. Monte.

In today's society in which the government seems to recognize, even promote, the concept of victimhood, I'd be very wary when confronting a stranger whom I thought crossed the line of acceptable conduct. He may have a shyster on retainer.

On this issue I am afraid because people do not know their history they do in fact repeat it. The issue that was brought up about a picture taken in a park of a person (child) by a photographer and stranger, was the subject of numerous editorials in newspapers in London, England during the 1890's. People then complained their privacy was invaded, and the question of how much privacy a person should expect when they are in public was much debated, and never resolved, as it is today, 120 years later.

This is nothing new, nothing has changed. Looking back to previous times in our history always evokes a nostalgia for the good old days, which never really existed as we like to remember them.

Only reason we look back at the good old days is because it seems like a comforting thought,but you are right they never exsisted. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. We all know what the 60s were like. I believe history like life does repeat itself because of our failure to learn. We are always doing the same thing expecting different results. We have taken so much and given so little. Trust is an issue because it works. We can justify so much. It has always been simple but simple never seved the purpose. For all that seems bad the real power is in the goodness of the human spirit. It is much easier to see what is wrong then focus on what is right. We are here for a reason and I believe that is to learn how to see all things as a whole. Each and everyone as a part of ourselves. Monte.

First of all, the guy should have asked permission, especially with your son being a minor. I have read all kinds of information regarding photographing people and you had better have all your ducks in a row or watch out. There even permission slips that have to be signed if the pictures are every displayed for the public or it is a violation. Keep an eye out. He sounds like of fishy to me or he has a lot of learning to do. GOOD LUCK!!!