Just because you can does not mean you should. If somebody politely makes a reasonable request why be an ass?
I think there is a big difference between being an arse and standing up for your rights to some whineing busy body who makes it their lifes work to complain about anything and everything.
Im my repeated experience, the fair dinkum people with a REASONABLE request will come up to you and ask you in a quiet and polite manner and apologise for any inconvinence and seem very greateful when you help them out.
Then there are the loudmouths who want to make a song and dance about nothing and attract as much attention to themselves as possible in an attempt to make themselves look important and in some sort of authourity which they NEVER posses.
They are the arses and the ones I will ignore every time and if people care to re-read and comprehend what I wrote, they will see this is what I was specificaly addressing.
Perhaps some are commenting on such a situation more on perception than actual real world business experience?
Again repeated practical experience has shown that the whingers and moaners will ALWAYS profess to speak for the great majority of people and have their firm support. The thing I have found is when you try to find out who else is of the same opinion, you can never find anyone and typically the rest of the relevant group are of the exact opposite position!
Another trait of the whingers is that they profess to know the law and have that on their side and then when you prove them wrong, the inevitable retort is " I don't care ....."
My reply to that is why should I care what you want when you don't have any regard or respect for the law or anyone else? That either shuts them up or sends them into an uproar where they start clutching at all sorts of stupid reasoning that shows them for fools they inevitably are and destroys any minute credibility they may have had.
If some people want to let any whinger that comes along stop them doing what they are entitled to do so they can appease these people, thats their right to do so the same as it is mine to do what I am legally and moraly allowed to and make my own decisions of when to enforce these rights.
If you are selling the images and a parent doesn't want shots taken of their child then why take them? You aren't going to sell them, so what reason is left? Other than an unsavory one.
I suggest you go back to the first post of the thread and start reading from there so as to get an understanding of what it is that is being discussed here.
IMHO, it's not a question of whether 'we can or can't'.
It's how WE should conduct our business.
I only shoot in leagues where I have their approval, and their support. I don't care whether or not I need it to shoot.
Also, all of my youth galleries are password protected. Again, I don't care if I have to, or not. Parents like private galleries.
I wouldn't do business any other way.
Not directing this at any one in particular, but shooters who simply show up, shoot at will, post on the net publicly, and when they get questioned on it, cry "public domain, 1st amendment,etc", can make us all look bad in the long run.
Again, it's not a question of legality, its a case of courtesy, and professionalism.
To those who insist on abrasively pursuing their right to photograph, I would say there are plenty of considerations that
a) would lead a parent to not want their child's image broadcast to the world, but
b) do not indicate paranoia on the part of said parent.
Some concerns about sexual predators are valid. The idea that some creep will see the image isn't the issue.
No matter what leads the parent to object, good manners demand at least an acknowledgment of their opinion. Doing so can defuse the situation quickly. A thinking person is not an angry person - so the quicker the discussion becomes one that involves thought and respect for another's opinions and wishes (whether complied with or not), the sooner everyone is nearer to being satisfied (at least partially).
The most agitated parents are probably under the impression that their rights are being violated. Just being wrong doesn't make them an idiot.
I'm reminded of an occasion when I was near (but not in) a "cell-free zone" where cellphone use was prohibited. I was using a cellphone, which induced anger in a passer-by. His reaction made me very angry (which, fortunately, I did not show). In retrospect, I realize that it was the attempt to infringe my rights that got me so worked-up (at the time I only knew I was angry).
I was well within my rights, but it could quickly have become violent. What a stupid thing to get in a fight over.
We should all recognize that, in any given situation, what is within our rights to do greatly exceeds what is polite to do. Giving at least the appearance of caring more about what is polite than what is legal usually makes the issue go away without changing what you might capture for images.
Whenever I shoot pictures of kids that aren't my own (usually onstage rather than sports, but same kind of thing), I always make sure that the gallery is unlisted (and/or password-protected), and the link is distributed to the participants via whoever is in charge of the group/club (even if they didn't formally 'ask" me to take pictures).
I won't shoot if anyone requests password protected galleries anymore, EVER. I always ask them if they ban cell phones and Facebook accounts for the requested participants. They don't so I move on, they prey on your honesty and goodwill while taking pictures. I bet if you pay attention there are a ton of Cell phone or NonDSLR pics after the games and dances with their friends and such that will end up of FB. They type A folks think they need total control of their children's image but will click on the link time and time again on FB that some girl killed herself because her dad posted this on FB.
I once had a an Elementary School Principal freak out about me taking pictures of a PTA event off school grounds event and could not get the County Legal to respond to a call about me taking pictures. It was not on-site and honestly and not a school function but she was all about CYA, she wasn't sure I could take pictures of the kids, during the time, blah blah blah and I knew better see the above paragraph and one of the kids was mine and I was asked to shoot by the PTA. Funny thing was while multiple emails and face to face conversations she did not reply. However I did get an email from the school saying a DVD would be available to purchase of the performance in question for 5 bucks and oh they did not pay for the music being used since it during the event. I was the PTA President for the previous 2 years and it was a new Principal.
Folks tend to use the Photo BS when it is convenient to them.. Think about it.. If the local Newspaper was there to shoot their kids dancing or playing a sport they would never even think of asking them not to shoot.
Again, if you are shooting commercially and a specific parent doesn't want it, why bother? No of course they cannot stop you shooting any kid, even their own, but to shoot theirs would be pointless.
I may have misinterpreted your point and if this is the case I wholeheartedly apologize for my lack of attention to detail.
I would also not photograph a specific child if asked not to even by someone I judged to be a whinger. As you say there is no point. In fact when I have been asked no to be a parent that I thought was just a complainer, i was glad not to because I knew it would bite them in the ass when all the other kids had pics and theirs did not.
Not fair to the kid but thats the parents doing not mine.
Perhaps I was relating more to past experience than paying enough attention to what was being said.
As I alluded to, my limited experience is that parents that have a genuine request not to have their kids pic taken ask quietly and politely. Of course I am glad to respect their wishes as it is counter productive not to.
Also my more prevalent experience has been loudmouths that propose to speak for everyone in order to give themselves a power trip. I have come across this numerous times and this is what I was more thinking of in my previous comments. I stand by them in this regard, I won't be put off by whingers that have no authority and purport to speak for others when they don't.
This I have come across many times.
Anyway, once again if i missed the point being made, i apologize and hope I have clarified the specifics of what I should have been addressing.
I won't shoot if anyone requests password protected galleries anymore, EVER.
Folks tend to use the Photo BS when it is convenient to them.. Think about it.. If the local Newspaper was there to shoot their kids dancing or playing a sport they would never even think of asking them not to shoot.
I also think that password protected galleries are a complete Crock.
In the couple of times I have been asked to do this, I put a plainly obvious hint question on the page where the password goes so anyone at all could work it out. I think one I asked what the name of the club was when I had the gallery titled " Rangers Football club "
and another was what game were they playing.
I'm in business and to ask me to put an impediment to conducting that business on my own site i take to be both an insult and ridiculous.
The other thing is i do not believe in all this fear mongering child protection crap and think it is just that, crap.
If parents are so damned scared for their children, why do half of them drop them at a game and then take off to go do whatever and then come back after the game often leaving the kid waiting virtually unprotected from the people they propose to be so concerned about?
The thing that I have noticed in the couple of times i have done password protected galleries that afforded no difficulty to anyone logging onto them was nobody said Boo about it. If they were genuinely concerned, they should have been freaking out at how easy I made it but quite clearly they were more concerned with the idea than any actual fears or benefits.
You are also right concerning the Faceache angle and newspapers.
I have had whingers go on at me before about child protection and the usual rot while people not 6 ft away have been snapping madly with their P&S cameras and announcing to people they are going to put them on the web for all to see. HELLO!
A couple of years back my son played in a base ball team and one of the new kids dad was a detective that actually worked on child related offenses. During the season I got to know him a bit and we got talking. When i found out what he did I said I was surprised he hadn't had a go at me for taking the kids pics as I usually did. He laughed and said it was plainly obvious I wasn't a pervert. I asked how. He said the weirdos don't stand out the front of everybody and walk around in plain sight, they will be the ones trying to look as inconspicuous as possible and standing quietly behind everyone else or away from them.
I also asked him if he thought the weirdos would be interested in pics of kids playing sport and otherwise doing normal clothed activities. He laughed again. He said in all the thousands of pics he had seen that the weirdos had, none of them were like that, they were all on another totally sick level and also thought the general premise people had was completely wrong.
It's things like this that have reduced my tolerance of the whingers and media misleads to zero.
Since I'm the one who raised the point about possibly pw-locked galleries, can I just reiterate:
- I don't shoot sports but have voluntarily shot school drama events (with permission from the directors of the shows)
- I've usually gone for an unlisted rather than pw-protected gallery (easier for me) and it has been entirely my own choice to do that, not in response to a request from anybody (I've had no complaints of any kind to date).
It's not a big deal to me, but why would pw-ing be offensive or a problem? I don't do it that often myself (simply for my own convenience), but I'm not understanding why the vehemently-opposed reaction. Does it really interfere that much with sales?
Since I'm the one who raised the point about possibly pw-locked galleries, can I just reiterate:
- I don't shoot sports but have voluntarily shot school drama events (with permission from the directors of the shows)
- I've usually gone for an unlisted rather than pw-protected gallery (easier for me) and it has been entirely my own choice to do that, not in response to a request from anybody (I've had no complaints of any kind to date).
It's not a big deal to me, but why would pw-ing be offensive or a problem? I don't do it that often myself (simply for my own convenience), but I'm not understanding why the vehemently-opposed reaction. Does it really interfere that much with sales?
It gets to a point with me and password protected galleries that someone else wants control of my work. I am easy to get along with and work really hard at what I do, most of the HS and Local Dance folks have a skewed Idea of copyright law and what they own. It takes a while to get the password out there for them to look at the pictures then they have to remember it, besides bringing an extra step adding to click fatigue, I have had parents the few times I did it just not mess with it. I could tell it was because of the password on the galleries. I vowed not to do it again. I do not go out of my way and be a jerk about it if asked, I politely just explain my feelings about what it does to my sales and put their privacy fears at ease. Then they understand, being a wordsmith is not one of my strong point so I don't want to come across as harsh, I do my best to keep folks happy within reason.
If parents are so damned scared for their children, why do half of them drop them at a game and then take off to go do whatever and then come back after the game often leaving the kid waiting virtually unprotected from the people they propose to be so concerned about?
Agreed. There are plenty of parents who are far too careless.
A couple of years back my son played in a base ball team and one of the new kids dad was a detective that actually worked on child related offenses. . . . asked him if he thought the weirdos would be interested in pics of kids playing sport and otherwise doing normal clothed activities. . . . He said in all the thousands of pics he had seen that the weirdos had, none of them were like that, they were all on another totally sick level and also thought the general premise people had was completely wrong.
He is right. The issue isn't that the images might be viewed by a creep for lewd purposes (unlikely, and harmless). The real question is whether the image identifies the child and puts them in context, with back story, in a a way that helps a truly dangerous predator find/contact the child. Still unlikely, but the risk is not zero. As others have mentioned on this thread, there are sometimes circumstances that greatly increase this risk, about which the photographer would not know. Of course, the age of the child is a huge factor.
Comparison from Same events year before in statistics and like events, night and day difference can't make the parents jump through to many hoops.
There is one thing that may get the parent to stop asking for special treatment, Quality Pictures. When they see what you do and how well you do it they may become a customer. A quality product is always a great way to get the parents on your side..
It's not a big deal to me, but why would pw-ing be offensive or a problem?
The couple of times I did it with a real password was also a disaster.
I made very sure the parents were all given flyers wit the password on it which related to the group i had shot and i thought would have been easier enough to remember. I got emails about people not remembering it and not being able to get on to the gallerys, the secratary of the club got driven nuts with emails and phone calls, people mis spelt the word ( how I don't know) and like noted abouve sales were bugger all and complaints were high.
Secondly, As I said I don't believe in all this boogeyman hiding behind the corner rubbish. If someone is stalking a kid the odds of them finding the right site to find a pic of them is needle in a haystack stuff and even if they did, with no other details on it, it of no benifit to them anyway.
If they knew what area the kid was in they could just as easy visit local sports grounds themselves anyhow.
But then if the kids were being stalked, the parent would ask you not to shoot them so it wouldn't be an issue.
In any event. like said previously, it's not like the pic would have the kids name, address, phone number and blood group on it.
I really find the whole idea of pics of a kid on the web to hold some danger to be a crock. 99.99% of kids don't have anything to worry about or fear and the ones that do probably shouldn't be allowed to run around in public where anyone could see them.
To me this is really more of another media sensationalist beat up than having and real merit.
Yeah sure, there is one kid in 100,000 that might have something to worry about but since when did we start making rules that inconvinence everyone else to accomodate the extremely rare?
If the parents dont want that kid to be photographed fine, but to propose that they are all in some sort of danger by having their pics put on a site amoungst the millions of other pics that probably go up each day is ridicilous.
Like I said, I won't be a part of supporting this beat up rabble rousing stupidity.
I would like to add my experience regarding the images of children. When I first started using smugmug I received an order from Washington state, I am located in Pittsburgh. I had a proof delay on my galleries of 2 or 3 days. When I went to make sure cropping, etc was adequate and acceptable I found images of my own son and one of his friends were in the order. Photos of fully clothed, sweaty, rosey cheeked young boys....pre-pubescent around 12 yrs old. I contacted the purchaser.......an attorney with a web presence mind you........easily googled his name and found out all about him. He stated he had a "collection" of sports images and enjoyed my images and wanted to add to his collection. I had just started out......the pics were taken with a 20D and a kit lens...they weren't anything special, just snapshots. You just never know what kind of thing the perverts are looking for or where their fetish lies.
I shoot a good bit of youth wrestling and the parents are very appreciative of the passwords. young boys and men in singlets rolling around on the mats is another fetish. there are videos on ebay of college matches being sold for this very purpose. I got a quick education in perversions.
Had the images not been of my son and a child I know, I probably would have assumed it was an out of state relative and never gave it a second thought. You just never know. His order was fed exed to him overnight.......and I had replaced the images selected with images of my dogs behind. never heard a word from him.
The couple of times I did it with a real password was also a disaster.
I made very sure the parents were all given flyers wit the password on it which related to the group i had shot and i thought would have been easier enough to remember. I got emails about people not remembering it and not being able to get on to the gallerys, the secratary of the club got driven nuts with emails and phone calls, people mis spelt the word ( how I don't know) and like noted abouve sales were bugger all and complaints were high.
This is because people are idiots and are incapable of reading simple directions.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
This is because people are idiots and are incapable of reading simple directions.
I used to work in research and development for a large consumer products company, building and testing prototypes. We had to do all kinds of safety/damage testing and my boss' slogan that he passed on was "Consumers are idiots. Never EVER assume that 'there's no way someone would be dumb enough to do this'." We used to have to do things like leaving devices turned on while literally running the batteries under a faucet because some idiot will always try to use something in the shower even if it's not intended for it.
I too had that Lawyer from Washington order pictures from me.. Of the 2000 orders since I started on Smugmug that is the only one I had Smugmug cancel for me.. It looked really strange from the beginning. That is why I use Proof Delay I can approve or Disapprove who orders, you know who is legit and who isn't..
Comments
I think there is a big difference between being an arse and standing up for your rights to some whineing busy body who makes it their lifes work to complain about anything and everything.
Im my repeated experience, the fair dinkum people with a REASONABLE request will come up to you and ask you in a quiet and polite manner and apologise for any inconvinence and seem very greateful when you help them out.
Then there are the loudmouths who want to make a song and dance about nothing and attract as much attention to themselves as possible in an attempt to make themselves look important and in some sort of authourity which they NEVER posses.
They are the arses and the ones I will ignore every time and if people care to re-read and comprehend what I wrote, they will see this is what I was specificaly addressing.
Perhaps some are commenting on such a situation more on perception than actual real world business experience?
Again repeated practical experience has shown that the whingers and moaners will ALWAYS profess to speak for the great majority of people and have their firm support. The thing I have found is when you try to find out who else is of the same opinion, you can never find anyone and typically the rest of the relevant group are of the exact opposite position!
Another trait of the whingers is that they profess to know the law and have that on their side and then when you prove them wrong, the inevitable retort is " I don't care ....."
My reply to that is why should I care what you want when you don't have any regard or respect for the law or anyone else? That either shuts them up or sends them into an uproar where they start clutching at all sorts of stupid reasoning that shows them for fools they inevitably are and destroys any minute credibility they may have had.
If some people want to let any whinger that comes along stop them doing what they are entitled to do so they can appease these people, thats their right to do so the same as it is mine to do what I am legally and moraly allowed to and make my own decisions of when to enforce these rights.
I suggest you go back to the first post of the thread and start reading from there so as to get an understanding of what it is that is being discussed here.
http://www.knippixels.com
Completely agree with your post.
To those who insist on abrasively pursuing their right to photograph, I would say there are plenty of considerations that
a) would lead a parent to not want their child's image broadcast to the world, but
b) do not indicate paranoia on the part of said parent.
Some concerns about sexual predators are valid. The idea that some creep will see the image isn't the issue.
No matter what leads the parent to object, good manners demand at least an acknowledgment of their opinion. Doing so can defuse the situation quickly. A thinking person is not an angry person - so the quicker the discussion becomes one that involves thought and respect for another's opinions and wishes (whether complied with or not), the sooner everyone is nearer to being satisfied (at least partially).
The most agitated parents are probably under the impression that their rights are being violated. Just being wrong doesn't make them an idiot.
I'm reminded of an occasion when I was near (but not in) a "cell-free zone" where cellphone use was prohibited. I was using a cellphone, which induced anger in a passer-by. His reaction made me very angry (which, fortunately, I did not show). In retrospect, I realize that it was the attempt to infringe my rights that got me so worked-up (at the time I only knew I was angry).
I was well within my rights, but it could quickly have become violent. What a stupid thing to get in a fight over.
We should all recognize that, in any given situation, what is within our rights to do greatly exceeds what is polite to do. Giving at least the appearance of caring more about what is polite than what is legal usually makes the issue go away without changing what you might capture for images.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
So far, I've not had any complaints.
I once had a an Elementary School Principal freak out about me taking pictures of a PTA event off school grounds event and could not get the County Legal to respond to a call about me taking pictures. It was not on-site and honestly and not a school function but she was all about CYA, she wasn't sure I could take pictures of the kids, during the time, blah blah blah and I knew better see the above paragraph and one of the kids was mine and I was asked to shoot by the PTA. Funny thing was while multiple emails and face to face conversations she did not reply. However I did get an email from the school saying a DVD would be available to purchase of the performance in question for 5 bucks and oh they did not pay for the music being used since it during the event. I was the PTA President for the previous 2 years and it was a new Principal.
Folks tend to use the Photo BS when it is convenient to them.. Think about it.. If the local Newspaper was there to shoot their kids dancing or playing a sport they would never even think of asking them not to shoot.
www.phabulousphotos.com
Sportsshooter.com Member
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=10162
I may have misinterpreted your point and if this is the case I wholeheartedly apologize for my lack of attention to detail.
I would also not photograph a specific child if asked not to even by someone I judged to be a whinger. As you say there is no point. In fact when I have been asked no to be a parent that I thought was just a complainer, i was glad not to because I knew it would bite them in the ass when all the other kids had pics and theirs did not.
Not fair to the kid but thats the parents doing not mine.
Perhaps I was relating more to past experience than paying enough attention to what was being said.
As I alluded to, my limited experience is that parents that have a genuine request not to have their kids pic taken ask quietly and politely. Of course I am glad to respect their wishes as it is counter productive not to.
Also my more prevalent experience has been loudmouths that propose to speak for everyone in order to give themselves a power trip. I have come across this numerous times and this is what I was more thinking of in my previous comments. I stand by them in this regard, I won't be put off by whingers that have no authority and purport to speak for others when they don't.
This I have come across many times.
Anyway, once again if i missed the point being made, i apologize and hope I have clarified the specifics of what I should have been addressing.
I also think that password protected galleries are a complete Crock.
In the couple of times I have been asked to do this, I put a plainly obvious hint question on the page where the password goes so anyone at all could work it out. I think one I asked what the name of the club was when I had the gallery titled " Rangers Football club "
and another was what game were they playing.
I'm in business and to ask me to put an impediment to conducting that business on my own site i take to be both an insult and ridiculous.
The other thing is i do not believe in all this fear mongering child protection crap and think it is just that, crap.
If parents are so damned scared for their children, why do half of them drop them at a game and then take off to go do whatever and then come back after the game often leaving the kid waiting virtually unprotected from the people they propose to be so concerned about?
The thing that I have noticed in the couple of times i have done password protected galleries that afforded no difficulty to anyone logging onto them was nobody said Boo about it. If they were genuinely concerned, they should have been freaking out at how easy I made it but quite clearly they were more concerned with the idea than any actual fears or benefits.
You are also right concerning the Faceache angle and newspapers.
I have had whingers go on at me before about child protection and the usual rot while people not 6 ft away have been snapping madly with their P&S cameras and announcing to people they are going to put them on the web for all to see. HELLO!
A couple of years back my son played in a base ball team and one of the new kids dad was a detective that actually worked on child related offenses. During the season I got to know him a bit and we got talking. When i found out what he did I said I was surprised he hadn't had a go at me for taking the kids pics as I usually did. He laughed and said it was plainly obvious I wasn't a pervert. I asked how. He said the weirdos don't stand out the front of everybody and walk around in plain sight, they will be the ones trying to look as inconspicuous as possible and standing quietly behind everyone else or away from them.
I also asked him if he thought the weirdos would be interested in pics of kids playing sport and otherwise doing normal clothed activities. He laughed again. He said in all the thousands of pics he had seen that the weirdos had, none of them were like that, they were all on another totally sick level and also thought the general premise people had was completely wrong.
It's things like this that have reduced my tolerance of the whingers and media misleads to zero.
- I don't shoot sports but have voluntarily shot school drama events (with permission from the directors of the shows)
- I've usually gone for an unlisted rather than pw-protected gallery (easier for me) and it has been entirely my own choice to do that, not in response to a request from anybody (I've had no complaints of any kind to date).
It's not a big deal to me, but why would pw-ing be offensive or a problem? I don't do it that often myself (simply for my own convenience), but I'm not understanding why the vehemently-opposed reaction. Does it really interfere that much with sales?
It gets to a point with me and password protected galleries that someone else wants control of my work. I am easy to get along with and work really hard at what I do, most of the HS and Local Dance folks have a skewed Idea of copyright law and what they own. It takes a while to get the password out there for them to look at the pictures then they have to remember it, besides bringing an extra step adding to click fatigue, I have had parents the few times I did it just not mess with it. I could tell it was because of the password on the galleries. I vowed not to do it again. I do not go out of my way and be a jerk about it if asked, I politely just explain my feelings about what it does to my sales and put their privacy fears at ease. Then they understand, being a wordsmith is not one of my strong point so I don't want to come across as harsh, I do my best to keep folks happy within reason.
www.phabulousphotos.com
Sportsshooter.com Member
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=10162
How??????????????
http://www.knippixels.com
Agreed. There are plenty of parents who are far too careless.
He is right. The issue isn't that the images might be viewed by a creep for lewd purposes (unlikely, and harmless). The real question is whether the image identifies the child and puts them in context, with back story, in a a way that helps a truly dangerous predator find/contact the child. Still unlikely, but the risk is not zero. As others have mentioned on this thread, there are sometimes circumstances that greatly increase this risk, about which the photographer would not know. Of course, the age of the child is a huge factor.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
Comparison from Same events year before in statistics and like events, night and day difference can't make the parents jump through to many hoops.
There is one thing that may get the parent to stop asking for special treatment, Quality Pictures. When they see what you do and how well you do it they may become a customer. A quality product is always a great way to get the parents on your side..
www.phabulousphotos.com
Sportsshooter.com Member
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=10162
The couple of times I did it with a real password was also a disaster.
I made very sure the parents were all given flyers wit the password on it which related to the group i had shot and i thought would have been easier enough to remember. I got emails about people not remembering it and not being able to get on to the gallerys, the secratary of the club got driven nuts with emails and phone calls, people mis spelt the word ( how I don't know) and like noted abouve sales were bugger all and complaints were high.
Secondly, As I said I don't believe in all this boogeyman hiding behind the corner rubbish. If someone is stalking a kid the odds of them finding the right site to find a pic of them is needle in a haystack stuff and even if they did, with no other details on it, it of no benifit to them anyway.
If they knew what area the kid was in they could just as easy visit local sports grounds themselves anyhow.
But then if the kids were being stalked, the parent would ask you not to shoot them so it wouldn't be an issue.
In any event. like said previously, it's not like the pic would have the kids name, address, phone number and blood group on it.
I really find the whole idea of pics of a kid on the web to hold some danger to be a crock. 99.99% of kids don't have anything to worry about or fear and the ones that do probably shouldn't be allowed to run around in public where anyone could see them.
To me this is really more of another media sensationalist beat up than having and real merit.
Yeah sure, there is one kid in 100,000 that might have something to worry about but since when did we start making rules that inconvinence everyone else to accomodate the extremely rare?
If the parents dont want that kid to be photographed fine, but to propose that they are all in some sort of danger by having their pics put on a site amoungst the millions of other pics that probably go up each day is ridicilous.
Like I said, I won't be a part of supporting this beat up rabble rousing stupidity.
I shoot a good bit of youth wrestling and the parents are very appreciative of the passwords. young boys and men in singlets rolling around on the mats is another fetish. there are videos on ebay of college matches being sold for this very purpose. I got a quick education in perversions.
Had the images not been of my son and a child I know, I probably would have assumed it was an out of state relative and never gave it a second thought. You just never know. His order was fed exed to him overnight.......and I had replaced the images selected with images of my dogs behind. never heard a word from him.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Cr8ingWaves-Photography/119946782908?ref=ts
This is because people are idiots and are incapable of reading simple directions.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I used to work in research and development for a large consumer products company, building and testing prototypes. We had to do all kinds of safety/damage testing and my boss' slogan that he passed on was "Consumers are idiots. Never EVER assume that 'there's no way someone would be dumb enough to do this'." We used to have to do things like leaving devices turned on while literally running the batteries under a faucet because some idiot will always try to use something in the shower even if it's not intended for it.
True!
But they have a name.
They are called "Customers".
www.phabulousphotos.com
Sportsshooter.com Member
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=10162