Jaxx'sBuddy

Just dont sit in your car with your pants dropped, Jaxx :p :p :p

lol that's what i am thinking...i might dust off the camera and see what happens and i think i will start asking people some of the questions that have been raised in this thread because i am really curious on how many people see this as an issue.

this is a really interesting discussion about ethics and critical thinking as well as the law. i think if we take kids out of the equation it is easier for us to look at scenarios as you have outlined. so my response based on your scenario would be i have no objection to the photo being taken

That's the point though, the laws aren't needed because they are protective of something that would happen so rarely we might as well ban animal photos next in case rugby league players all become bestiality freaks as well I wouldn't like to just blame the schools because having been on baby forums recently it DOES seem to be parents who are paranoid for no real reason. Some may have a genuine reason for not wanting their kid photographed but some truly don't want it because they think the photo will end up in the hands of a pervert. It boggles the mind this even occurs to people. Better not take the kid out shopping in case someone is sitting there watching for cute kids and takes the memory home later ! that is very relevant in SA today because the xmas pageant is on....so all those kids in public with lots of media attention...will parents stop taking kids to events like this? goodness what sort of society have we become?

thank you yes i understand that situation. the situation i don't understand is allowing pregnant animals to whelp (don't know the word for cats)

There will always be someone somewhere who will get their jollies off anything. Some people get off on people with crooked teeth, some people get off on pictures of women's feet, some people are oddly attracted to inanimate objects. This is not going to stop me posting photos of brides with crooked teeth, putting their shoes on during the course of their wedding day. Of course, I only post tasteful photos on our website but even those can be picked out by 'the wrong sort'... heck, even a KMart catalogue is fodder for some people!! What I'm saying is the element has always been there in society, it's just more public now that freaks are among us. If people start sanitising because of the freaks, then there will be nothing left to put online... because ANYTHING can be seen as 'attractive' by some people. totally agree with you but it is the reason this is happening so if anything is to be done this needs to be taken into account. edited to clarify what i mean is if photographers are in general ok and they have no evil intent, why are they being policed, why isn't energy being put into managing/stopping the people causing the issue? i will answer that one too..because it is easier to spot someone with a camera than it is to spot a paedophile so we are in this situation because the powers to be are lazy Put it in terms of dog breeding... with all the restrictions being brought in, it's becoming harder and harder for ethical breeders to continue breeding and only viable for those prepared to flaunt the law to keep going. If you put lots of restrictions on taking photos then it becomes harder for people doing the right thing to continue what they're doing and the only people who will be taking photos are those who are prepared to flaunt the laws anyway. I would rather see a photographer on a beach taking photos of people within their site than some person sitting in a car with a telephoto lens and his pants dropped. i am in agreement with you......the law is an ass. they are policing the wrong people

OK that makes more sense, and on the whole I agree with you. But... what about rescue puppies and kittens? I have a friend fostering some orphan baby kittens for the SPCA right now. Should they be given away for free, or PTS, or kept until they are adults before they can be sold? Or can the SPCA sell them when they are 8 weeks old? Perhaps genuine rescues should be exempt from the rules of only breeders being allowed to sell puppies and kittens. perhaps but it does raise an issue that has been bothering me for a while. why do rescues/pounds allow cats and dogs to have puppies and kittens when this is just increasing the problem?

There will always be someone somewhere who will get their jollies off anything. Some people get off on people with crooked teeth, some people get off on pictures of women's feet, some people are oddly attracted to inanimate objects. This is not going to stop me posting photos of brides with crooked teeth, putting their shoes on during the course of their wedding day. Of course, I only post tasteful photos on our website but even those can be picked out by 'the wrong sort'... heck, even a KMart catalogue is fodder for some people!! What I'm saying is the element has always been there in society, it's just more public now that freaks are among us. If people start sanitising because of the freaks, then there will be nothing left to put online... because ANYTHING can be seen as 'attractive' by some people. totally agree with you but it is the reason this is happening so if anything is to be done this needs to be taken into account. edited to clarify what i mean is if photographers are in general ok and they have no evil intent, why are they being policed, why isn't energy being put into managing/stopping the people causing the issue? i will answer that one too..because it is easier to spot someone with a camera than it is to spot a paedophile so we are in this situation because the powers to be are lazy or they can't think of a solution

wow good news CW_EW and good on charlie for dispatching the interloper...he's such a good hunter

i have been thinking...ok so a photographer takes a shot, innocent and a good photo, subject immaterial. now we are told the photographer can't take any more shots like this because some people may view this photo with evil intent. so the photographer and all of us with no evil intent are punished because society/law makers etc are too lazy or too overwhelmed to fix the base problem that we have bad people in our midsts that they/we dont want here this is truly a case of the lowest common denominator setting the standard

Weirdos and rockspiders. Imagine a tourist rocking up to the famous Bondi beach and pulling out his/her camera only to be jumped on by cops. Unbelievable. to be honest i am reeling a bit from that article and i need to have a think but my initial thoughts are that as a society we don't know how to deal with the internet and the associated potential lack of privacy and therefore we are clamping down on things before they are a problem. because of the internet bad people have more access to vulnerable people so we are clamping down on possible issues. we are also bombarded with bad things...the information age makes news and events so much easier for us to access but it seems that all we get is the bad news which feeds into paranoia it is all so sad that we are where we are eta i am the first to say vulnerable people need protecting but i am not sure we are going about it the right way

great great article what are we becoming when a parent cannot take photos of their child in the bath ........ in the US. There, mothers who have taken nude family snaps of their children have been denounced as child pornographers or charged with child abuse. Framing Innocence, a new book by Lynn Powell, tells the story of Cynthia Stewart, an Ohio school bus driver who, in 1999, was threatened with a 16-year jail sentence for taking photographs of her eight-year-old daughter, Nora, in the bath. Even after a court-appointed guardian for the child recommended the charges be dropped, they were aggressively pursued. She eventually avoided trial by agreeing to counselling and to having the nude photos of Nora destroyed.

i agree. what he did was deceptive and wrong

i think we feel more anonymous in other countries i know i do. i often don't speak the language, no one knows me and i stick out like the proverbial so its easier to take photos i think

*shakes head and wonders where it will all end*

OK here's the story - and this actually happened. A guy was forcibly removed BY POLICE from an event because he was taking photos of kids in a fancy dress parade. All the parents knew who he was because he'd been taking photos at similar events countless times. He looked suspicious because He was a man He had a 'funny' name (the guy is European) And he had expensive equipment (I kid you not). His wife who had accompanied him to all the other events, was not told to leave. The guy is a professional photo journalist. because he is male and taking photo's of kids he is targetted. if i was a guy i would be really peeved at what's going on at the moment

Old guy, long hair, 3 day growth, sandals. Well dressed woman, couple of gold rings, nice makeup. Would either of those two examples give you a different impression? (there is a point to my question - I'll get to it in a bit) even though i think i know where you are going with this i will answer honestly. the guy would make me more suspicious Especially if it looked like he was using a cute fluffy puppy to attract the children. That would be even more suspicious. yes. i also edited my post to say that i was wrong thinking that way and i'll tell you why, i have worked with people who abused kids and it not just guys who do it. so it is very wrong to think gender makes a person less creepy even though there are many fewer women who sexually abuse kids and the modus operandi is usually different. eta not sure if this is what raz was getting at though and if they were taking photos of adults it wouldnt make a difference to me

Old guy, long hair, 3 day growth, sandals. Well dressed woman, couple of gold rings, nice makeup. Would either of those two examples give you a different impression? (there is a point to my question - I'll get to it in a bit) even though i think i know where you are going with this i will answer honestly. the guy would make me more suspicious if you dont go the way i am thinking i will post later why i am wrong

I bet you one hundred dollars you wouldnt have taken the photo if you saw kids being in the moment with kites in Aus because someone might get creeped out. After this thread, I wouldnt either. Pretty sad, isnt it. yep you are 100% correct and it is very sad. this is a wonderful thread because now i am going to dig out those photos :D

Well that's the thing, isnt it. A moment captured you and you took that photo. Now every time you look at it it's going to give you a personal story. Is that wrong? Even if you sold the photo, is it wrong that you didnt ask her or her parents for permission first and get her to sign a release after? (not legally because she's hardly going to sue you, but morally?) that's the thing i am quite conflicted about this issue. i can see both sides

what a great idea

So according to Staranais that was OK because I think it's different if I'm part of a crowd or something and a photo is being taken of the whole crowd. but if it was a single kid does it suddenly become wrong and an invasion of privacy? Not having a go at staranais - just using as an example. but i did take a photo of one little girl because she was having so much fun and she was so in the moment with the kite flying

i was in tiananmen square it was a lovely sunny day and there were a lot of kids flying kites, just a normal day to them. as i was watching i started to think about the massacre and then the kite flying kids became something else for me what i started to see was how a dreadful thing and a wonderful thing could happen in exactly the same place. i'll bet no one else in that square at that time had my take on what was happening. i'll bet the were thinking they were doing ordinary things and i took photos of the kids and the kites

It may be your image, but it is the skill of the photographer which is being sold....not you or your dog. snap ellz i just said the same thing :D So they get paid for pushing a button on a camera and I don't get paid for them using my image? By your logic I guess models don't get paid as it is what the photographer does that is important? no one is saying you shouldn't get paid but a photographer does much more than push a button, i know i am hopeless at taking good photos :D so both parties should get paid but in order to get a gig the photo needs to be good and only a good photographer can do that (or someone who is lucky enough to jag a good shot)