A while back I posted an article called Photographers, perverts and paranoia – it might be time for an update.
I had an interesting, if somewhat tense, discussion at one of my recent presentations that I thought might be worth following up on.
I usually include a brief section on the more contentious aspects of street and documentary photography. This may contain photographs that have attracted some abuse on social media or have gone against the norms outlined by the self-appointed moral guardians online. This may be photographs of the homeless or subjects that some people seem to object to.
Often these images are simply those that divide opinion. For example, the image below garnered 67,000(!) likes on Facebook before they removed it because two people reported it. I’m not sure what the nature of the report was, but it doesn’t concern me too much.
In the past someone claimed this was a photograph of a sexual assault!
The most contentious subject of all, however, is photographing children.
I’ll point out from the start that I very rarely include children in my photographs. In a typical presentation of a hundred pictures, there are probably two that contain children. I also make a point of not showing any such pictures for several years and take care not to show any distinctive locations. I should also point out that it is perfectly legal (in the UK) to photograph anyone in a public place, including children.
Please refer to Photography advice | Metropolitan Police for advice on the legalities.
And also from the Avon and Somerset Police website:
There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people’s children.
If you are taking photographs from private land, you need to have the land owner’s permission. Taking a photo of a person where they can expect privacy, such as inside their home or garden, is likely to cause a breach of privacy laws.
Unless the images which have been taken are indecent, no one has the right to:
- ask a photographer to stop
- ask for a copy of the photos
- force a photographer to delete the photographs
During the presentations, I include the ‘controversial’ section for two main reasons. Firstly, the photographs are perfectly valid as part of a social documentary record, and secondly, to stimulate discussion.
An audience member at my recent presentation said they were a retired police officer and warned about taking pictures of children. They even suggested that anyone spotted doing so could be arrested. The reason for the ‘arrest’ would be ‘suspicion’.
I’ve heard that some private security employees can be uncertain of the law, but I’d only really heard positive reports about the police. The reasons the police would be involved is that, to quote my retired police officer, “they would sell the pictures on the dark web”.
I’m reluctant to really get involved with the topic as it’s not really a subject I photograph, but it raises plenty of concerns regarding attitudes and ignorance of photography.
By this logic, any image of a child is ‘suspect’ and liable to be distributed on the ‘dark web’. I’m aware that there are unsavoury characters out there but we are talking about fully clothed children in public settings. Are we saying that Kate and William are reckless for publishing pictures of their children? And what about the thousands of images shared on social media by parents? In clothing catalogues, TV adverts? By his reckoning, the kid on a Kinder chocolate wrapper is in mortal danger.
I’m aware that parental permission could be used as a factor, but his argument doesn’t really draw any distinction. Any image of a child could be sold on the dark web and anyone taking the image could be arrested. This makes very little sense in a safeguarding respect and casts a cloud of suspicion on innocent people.
Ironically, he was a big fan of the images and said how important it was to create this social record. It would be a very selective social record, however, if no children were ever shown.
I think this blanket paranoia does nothing to protect against nefarious characters. Whilst we are seeing danger in every shadow, we miss the dangers in broad daylight. He himself admitted that most threats are closer to home. Or in my words, a ‘pervy uncle is a bigger threat than a street photographer’.
The audience as a whole seemed to recognise that context matters, but when a police officer (albeit retired) creates this distrust, the suspicion is contagious.
I feel glad that I’ve probably already taken most of the images I will ever take, as I’ve a genuine sense of disillusionment. Not with photography itself, but with some people’s attitudes to it. This level of suspicion certainly takes away some of the enjoyment.
I’m thankfully not familiar with what goes on in a paedophile’s mind, but I struggle to believe that every single picture of a child puts them at risk. Hopefully, most people have a sense of perspective.
Photographs of life in the past feature prominently in photographic literature. It fascinates us. We are in danger of not having a record of life today for people to look back on.
In the village of Saltaire in Yorkshire, they have a festival each year. There are food stalls, entertainers and events in the park. The festival organisers display notices stating that people may be photographed for news and publicity purposes. They don’t really need to state this, but as a courtesy it’s fine.
There was a piece online regarding a photographer who was talking pictures in the park. Someone reported him to security who detained him for quite a while before eventually getting the police involved. The police rightly said he had done nothing wrong and he was released. It was undoubtedly a very disconcerting experience. At least these police knew the law, which is more than could be said for the security.
I found it ironic that there was a photography exhibition in Salt’s Mill at the time that included pictures of children. The bookshop in the Mill was selling copies of Tish Murtha’s ‘Elswick Kids’ and ‘Youth Unemployment’. Hundreds of people were using their phones to take pictures and videos.
On a personal level it is not a photographic subject that affects me too much. I don’t want to be viewed with suspicion just for having a camera, however. I know Bridget is struggling with her photography now, largely due to the attitudes of some people.
Photography is not a crime. Just being a photographer shouldn’t automatically arouse suspicion. We are all aware of potential dangers, but we need to keep things in perspective. Perhaps we should take a breath before jumping on prejudicial bandwagons and take a rational view of dangers.
Perhaps not posting contentious pictures until a considerable amount of time has passed is a reasonable option. To avoid a large proportion of the population completely doesn’t seem reasonable.
Although this article is concerned with photography, I think it’s relevant to many other areas. We are too quick to judge a particular group, be it ethnicity, religion or social status. We need to assess situations for ourselves rather than hanging on the loudest voice in the room.
Well said. Is it illegal in the UK or the US, or is it an invasion of privacy to photograph from a public road, a yard behind a 4ft chain link fence in which there are gnome yard decorations a beagle dog and a neatly kept trailer home ? It was quite a surprise when the front door opened and a woman appeared who demanded that I delete any photos that I had taken. That I could be shot and that I had better be careful, that if I continued up the road that there were others who might shoot me also. I deleted and thanked her for her advice and drove on. A Documentary film was made, Stranger With A Camera, concerning a murder some 40 or more years ago, the shooting of a photographer perhaps 30 miles from where I had this experience. The people of that area had been severely taken advantage of over a period of years. It is still difficult for me to understand that degree of defensiveness, if that is what it is. The ways that people may be taken advantage of, made to look poor and oppressed, perhaps even targeted for who knows what these days is truly mind boggling.
Definitely not illegal.
I think the privacy aspect is over emphasised, we don’t really have any privacy.
The privacy issue relates to “where we gave a reasonable expectation of privacy”. In practice this means in our own homes, and some private areas. On the street we can’t really say e have a reasonable right, were on every CCTV camera, car dash cams, everyone’s mobiles.
As long as we’re not exploiting personal in some way or ridiculing them then I don’t really see an issue.
Fortunately, were still unlikely to be shot over here in the UK.
John
Well said, also as another retired police officer it makes me laugh when my former retired colleagues give incorrect advise. it’s a bit like asking the public a load of questions on the highway code. they probably last looked at that years ago, and not many will remember it .unless you continue to train law after you retire, you tend to forget things quickly. I did 30 years and also trained criminal law , but 4 years after retirement having a discussion with a serving former colleague found out how much law had changed in that time.
Thanks for commenting.
The legal aspects of photography use, of course, very important so it’s vital the information is correct.
What really disturbs me is the connotations that go along with the criticism. People know it’s an emotive subject and use that against people.
I thought paranoia might be too strong a word but I think it’s about right unfortunately.
John
On a few occasions, I have been yelled at, had objects thrown at me because I was invading someone’s privacy, even though we were in a public setting. I am always polite, but I never give up my roll of film or delete an image. Even when improperly ask to by the police. I’ve found that sincerity and honesty go a long way when photographing others. I, like you, prefer to use wide glass and get up close. By being close, we invite our viewers to get in close. We are sharing our vision and inviting others to experience what we have experienced.
I’ve never been asked to delete an image, most people never realise I’ve taken their picture. I never look at the pictures when I’m out, I like the way it it was with film, not knowing what you’ve got until later.
Some photographers are too obvious, for want of a better word. Travel light is a good way to go.
I don’t think the animosity to photographers is unique. Society is polarised along many lines and looking for someone to attack seems to be the norm.
Photographing for the right reasons is very important. Some photographers are exploitative as are some people in every field. It’s a shame that everyone is treated with the same brush.