Photography is Against Our Policies!

That is what these nannies screamed at me when I tried to take a photo of their very cool four-kid stroller, on 19th Street: “Photography is against our polices!”

photographic protest

What they, and many others fail to realize is people (including children) on a public street have been found by the courts not to have an expectation of privacy and their photograph can be taken and even published without their consent. Using such images of the public for purposes of general commentary and criticism is also well established, and supersedes any “policy” these nannies or their company has.

So no matter how much or how loudly they yelled, even pulling out the race card at one point, when on a public street they can’t stop me, or you, from taking a photograph of them or anyone else.

And this yet another example of when photography is NOT a crime and why you should join Metroblogging DC in our Silver Spring Photo Walk – a declaration of photographic freedom on the perfect day: July 4th.

49 Comments so far

  1. Ex-Hy Hy (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 11:31 am

    Dude… chill. For all they know, you’re some pedo. Lighten up with this crusade, man.


  2. Wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 11:51 am

    That’s the whole point, I am chill. And chilling with a camera should not be grounds for verbal (and almost physcial) assault.


  3. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

    Actually, kids are the one place you really need a release, Wayan. It’s just polite.


  4. Carl Weaver (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 12:05 pm

    To be fair, it is a bit creepy sometimes when I see folks take pictures of other people in public. But creepy is not illegal. And if someone stood on the sidewalk and took pictures of my house, I might question the person and call him a jerkoff but I couldn’t legally stop him.

    Ex-Hy Hy – it’s about legality, not necessarily doing things that everyone considers safe and polite. I have been hassled about my photography many times, followed by cops, told not to photograph things, been given the finger, and almost got in a fight about videotaping a public event. I don’t want to upset people but that is secondary to upholding my own rights.


  5. Tiffany (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 12:06 pm

    It’s pretty common for organizations in care of children (such as schools and daycares, like this probably was) to be really picky about who gets to take pictures of the kids and all that. At my high school, release forms were sent home every year giving permission for images of students to be used in school promotional materials, news stories pertaining to the school, etc. (They were smart enough to know they could only enforce the policy on campus.) Aside from the general privacy concern, there’s a question of safety- what if the kid and his parent are in hiding from the other, abusive parent? (Incidentally, this is why Google worked with domestic violence shelters to make sure they weren’t included in the random street-level photos the Google Van took- not because they had to, but because it’s responsible and conscientious to do so.)

    So yeah, while you do have a right to take photos of people on the street, and the childcare providers were pretty abusive in trying to get you to stop… it’s still kind of a dick move to randomly start taking photos of other people’s kids on the street. Legally protected, certainly, but that nonetheless doesn’t do much to engender sympathy for the plight of the random guy with the camera.


  6. Wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 12:15 pm

    And you miss the point. I wanted a photograph of the buggy, not the kids. Had these three asked me not to take photos of the kids faces, I would’ve gladly complied & taken a shot of the buggy from behind.

    That they started screaming at the sight of the cell phone camera, and as you can see in the photo, aggressively got all up in my grill, was the dick move.


  7. Tiffany (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 12:25 pm

    I bet if you had just ASKED for a photo of the stroller instead of just walking up and snapping away, you’d have found them a lot more cooperative. That “asking politely” thing works both ways.


  8. Don (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 12:51 pm

    Asking “can I take a picture of your big cool stroller thing” might be the nice thing to do, but I can’t believe y’all are seriously saying that it’s reasonable for two people to freak the hell out and start yelling at someone for taking a picture in a public place.

    I’m sorry that so many people have seen too much Dateline NBC and get immediately in a panic when someone actually looks their kid directly in the eye, but what exactly is the harm done or potentially done to a kid when someone takes their picture? If Wayan was actually a complete psycho baby-raper then after he took that picture he’d…. have a picture.

    That’s it. There’s nothing potentially damaging to your kid if someone takes his or her picture. Maybe Pedo McWhackjob might take it home and stare at it and think naughty thoughts, but as gross as that is it causes the child not a bit of harm. You could work yourself into a froth that maybe he’s stalking you but the unpleasant reality is that nobody needs a picture to stalk someone – if they’re going to do something evil that picture doesn’t cause it or help it in any way that couldn’t happen without the picture.

    All that aside, the simple odds are that a person who takes a picture of your big odd stroller is statistically likely just to be wanting a picture of that stroller, or maybe the onesie the kid’s in so s/he can buy one for his/her kid/nephew. Or a billion other perfectly benign things, which you just reacted to with hostility and anger.

    Seriously, that’s what you’re defending here?


  9. Wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

    Tiff,

    I didn’t even get the chance to ask. As we both know, I am polite about photos if people are genuinely sensitive to it and will defer if asked politely.

    When yelled at about it like I’m a criminal, its a whole other story.


  10. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 1:04 pm

    I’m just asking for a little politeness, that’s all, Don. I certainly don’t want some random guy sticking his camera in my face, and I certainly don’t think asking politely is amiss.


  11. Brock (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 1:17 pm

    It’s against my policies to go around people that walk slower than me. I find that bowling them over and screaming “THAT’S MY POLICIES” gets me to work a hell of a lot quicker.


  12. Don (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 2:05 pm

    So you’re comparing physical violence against another person to taking a picture? Do you actually think that makes sense, Brock?

    I don’t think you’re reasonably assessing the situation either, Tom. I don’t see from that picture how Wayan was “sticking his camera” in anyone’s face – it’s clear he was several feet away and aiming at the mega-stroller. Between taking a picture without being in anyone’s way and aggressively approaching someone while speaking at a high volume I know who I think wasn’t showing a little politeness.


  13. Ex-Hy Hy (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

    I’m sorry, but I stand by my earlier criticism. It may be legal to take pictures of some little kids, but you need to understand that no matter how open-minded you think everybody should be about public photography, you’re likely going to bug someone out about it. Look at Imus: he was legally allowed to say what he did, but were people wrong to be get upset about it?

    Anyway, I’d wager that there’s two sides to this story. Just the fact that you, as evidence by the photo above, continued to take photos as they were “yelling” at you shows that you were non-compliant and only encouraged their “rudeness”. Martyr, please.


  14. anonymous (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 3:25 pm

    Were they wrong to stampede you? Of course. It shows a lack of respect for you as a person, not to mention being a bad role model for the kids. When it comes to kids, people are protective. Sure, “Dateline” has made us all wary and perhaps even paranoid. But I’d also argue it could have all been prevented if you’d asked before you pulled out your camera (“they started screaming at the sight of the cell phone camera”).

    The legality of the issue might be clear, but that doesn’t always jibe with the ethics (“what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation”) of an issue. And when kids are involved, those guidelines change. Kids cannot protect themselves, and sometimes adults take that charge a little too seriously (kiddie leashes, anyone?).

    To me, what the photo ends up being used for is not the issue. It’s that there is a lack of respect in taking a photo without permission – legal or not. And I think that’s the point Brock was making, albeit with a violent example. There are a number of things “legislated” by ethics and respect that have nothing to do with the law, but that make our world a more tolerable place. Cutting in line at the CVS is not illegal, but it is rude. Offering your seat on the bus to a pregnant lady isn’t ordered by the law, but is the civil thing to do. Asking before you take a photo of someone? It’s the right thing to do, no matter what the law says.


  15. Mike (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

    If you’ve got issues with having your photo taken then loading kids into a gigantor super-stroller and parading them down a public street in broad daylight might not be the best “policy” for you.


  16. anonymous (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 4:31 pm

    Mike, you walking around town with that smugness might not be the best “policy” for you.


  17. Stacey (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

    Agreed (with Mike and Don). Please, this is me. I’m all for politeness, and not swearing, and all kind of other prudishnesses. But walking on a public street is, well, public. If these day care workers were playing with the kids on their private day care property – or even walking them in the [freaking awesome, let’s be honest] stroller down their day care driveway, and Wayan started snapping – I would have been on the other side of this.

    I’d surely do hope that the people freaking out about this camera are also the ones that freak out about “security” and speed cameras… because they should be one in the same.


  18. Tiff (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 4:42 pm

    I’d love for Don to cite where I said it was “reasonable” for the childcare workers to behave like they did. Because what I actually said was that it was “abusive,” and I’m pretty sure that’s just about the opposite of “reasonable.”

    All I WAS actually saying is that there are plenty of very good reasons for people to try to prevent pictures of children from being taken (not least because they don’t set the “policies,” and stand to lose their jobs if the parent tries to sue the school over it, whether the case has merit or not).

    And Wayan said himself that they freaked out as soon as they caught sight of his cameraphone, which they couldn’t have caught sight of unless he was *wielding it* in their general direction. The time to ask for permission is before raising the camera, not after you’ve already taken the photo.


  19. Wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 4:51 pm

    Anonymous,

    I am all for being polite and respectful when taking photographs, I’ve been known to delete photos thought unflattering or to resist taking one if its exploitive or degrading.

    But we, as Americans, have specific rights and I am not about to abdicate them because others might not like it, or the methods to exercise it might seem rude to you.


  20. Ex-Hy Hy (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

    What specific right to photography do Americans have?


  21. anon (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 4:58 pm

    Wayan, you sound like you’re hiding behind the law to avoid a little politeness. Way to be human, man. You should be proud.


  22. Wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

    Ex-Hy-Hy,
    If you follow the link in the post, you can get a basic primer on photography law.

    The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs.

    Anon:
    The “anonymous” commenter says I’m hiding? Please!


  23. anon (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 5:10 pm

    My point still stands dispite your attempt to distract from it. A little human decency goes a long way.


  24. anon (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 5:10 pm

    My point still stands despite your attempt to distract from it. A little human decency goes a long way.


  25. Wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 5:10 pm

    Ex-Hy-Hy,
    If you follow the link in the post, you can get a basic primer on photography law.

    The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs.

    Anon:
    The “anonymous” commenter says I’m hiding? Please!


  26. Ex-Hy Hy (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up. Very interesting.


  27. Tiff (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 5:26 pm

    I’m still just astonished that people are defending Wayan’s rudeness by saying that it’s his legally protected right, and taking the photo subjects to task for THEIR equally-legally-protected rudeness. Just because you have the right to take someone’s photo on a public street doesn’t mean you have the right to do it without getting yelled at for it.


  28. Wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 5:59 pm

    My rudeness Tiff? So you’re saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to take photographs on public streets without permission from those in the photograph?

    I wonder if Rodney King would share your opinion. I’m sure the officers that beat him would. Or what about Thao Nguyen? Or the flasher she caught?

    There is a slippery slope from permissions to prohibitions. I am very happy American courts have their own opinion.


  29. anon (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

    Thats not at all what she said? Did you read the last sentence?


  30. still-anonymous (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 7:13 pm

    I’m the first Anonymous poster; the other anonymous & anon comments came from elsewhere.

    And here’s why I’m “hiding” (can’t speak for the others): I find the amount of vitriol spewed against people who disagree on this site is shocking.

    I actually find the topic quite interesting and would love to have an open discourse about it, but am wary of becoming bashed simply for having an opinion.


  31. katmere (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 8:15 pm

    Hi! I started the DC photo rights group *and* I happen to work in the field of child welfare (though I certainly am not an expert in either).

    I understand why the “nannies” may have been wary of photos, but their approach would not have helped anything if Wayan were some sort of predator (sorry Wayan). The best approached would have been to ask about his purpose and intention, and then if he were someone to be concerned about, they would have had more information for the police, as needed.

    I don’t even feel that this is a question of legality or civility, but it speaks to the culture of fear that does not simply exist when people are thinking about terrorism, but in all aspects of our lives.

    Is it reasonable to start yelling and screaming at someone on the street? Is is reasonable to assume every guy walking down the street may be a predator? Is is reasonable to take photos of people with out talking to them? What is privacy and what should privacy be? Is it reasonable to excuse behavior based on a right or based on fear?

    These are questions that we need to exploring and discussing, and that is why DC photo rights and Wayans posts are so valuable, even if you think the should have asked first. There is no actual expectation for him to have done so, and security cameras take photos of all of us every day with out our consent. What makes a camera phone different? It is only our fear of each other, and some people’s trust of authority.

    Simply, we live in a nation full up with fear, and it is tearing us apart.


  32. JLH (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 9:02 pm

    What Katmere said. Both sides might have acted better. Wayan may or may not have been surfing for a little trouble. The nannies look like they were well prepared to make some trouble. And why? Because we just aren’t friendly people. “We” is DC, is Americans, is all of us. I say take photos – It’s LEGAL! – and use it to reach out and connect to people instead of start fights or feed people’s paranoias. There has to be a way.


  33. anon (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 9:53 pm

    Jeeze, so i guess if i don’t want my picture taken I shouldn’t go outside huh? Yea, that is fair to me. Just ask first, talking first and acting later solves a lot of problems.


  34. wayan (unregistered) on June 25th, 2007 @ 10:34 pm

    I couldn’t agree more with Katmere.

    Like I said before, had the nannies asked me not to take the children’s photos (no matter if I took the photograph already or not) and allowed me to take a photo of the buggy, what I wanted anyway, I would’ve been happy & so would they.

    It’s their reaction to me pulling out my phone (I’d not even turned it on before they started screaming) that had me taking the photo to prove a point.

    Still-anonymous,
    Apologies if you find hostility here. Even if you took my photo against my desires, I would still treat you with respect.

    Come out on July 4th and I promise not to take your photo and yet engage in a lively, spirited, and honest discourse with you about the concept.


  35. Don (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 1:38 am

    “Jeeze, so i guess if i don’t want my picture taken I shouldn’t go outside huh? Yea, that is fair to me.”

    Like it or not, we don’t have much in the way of privacy protection in the US. There’s ways in which this bugs me – there’s a lot of companies making money off my information, buying and selling my contact and demographic info with little recourse for myself. Consider the fact that you have some limited resources under the FCRA to contest and challenge the accuracy of information stored about you but you have 0 ownership of it and do not get compensated at all for it.

    Personally I find the fact that someone can take non-commercial photographs of me when I’m out and about WAY less troubling than the fact that so many companies can take my presence on their property as consent to re-use my image for commercial purposes. Watch the signage the next time you walk into an amusement park.


  36. Eddie (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 1:56 am

    Carlos feels your pain. Check out photographyisnotacrime.org. He was arrested for taking pictures of some police making a routine stop. And oh yeah he’s a seasoned professional journalist.


  37. Tiff (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 9:28 am

    Yeah, still wondering where Wayan got the idea that I said you “shouldn’t be allowed” to take photos on a public street. I’m really surprised at both Don AND Wayan for putting words in my mouth in this discussion- since they both know me better than that and are usually far less into the straw-man arguments. Are y’all even reading the comments I’m making?

    All I’m saying is that your legally-protected right to be a jerk (and randomly snapping pictures of people on the street IS jerk behavior) is no more important than the nannies’ legally-protected rights to be jerks. So take your little photos, but then don’t play the wounded party when you get yelled at for it, because screaming isn’t any more of a crime than photography is.

    And you know perfectly well that my cranky libertarian self is the LAST person to argue that being a jerk should be made illegal. I just also happen to believe that being a jerk should be socially sanctioned, not legally sanctioned. Quit confusing the issue.


  38. Wayan (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 10:00 am

    Tiff,

    Glad to know you think that “randomly snapping pictures of people on the street IS jerk behavior.” That means almost all Metrobloggers, Flickr users, and pretty much anyone with a camera is a jerk because there is no way they asked for releases or permissions from _everyone_ in their photographs.


  39. Don (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 10:02 am

    Looking back on it maybe ‘reasonable’ was an overly strong word but you, Tom, and Ex Hy Hy really read to me like you were saying you found their reaction perfectly understandable, not that you found it unsurprising. Honestly, your above statement doesn’t do a lot to dissuade me from that. You’re drawing a parallel between “a dick move” of taking someone’s picture w/o asking with approaching someone aggressively and yelling.

    Maybe I just mind having my picture taken less than you do but I have a hard time seeing a parallel there. Wayan’s shutterbuggin may trigger your weirdo alert but it’s not remotely a hostile or confrontational action.

    I don’t know if this is just a communication breakdown or a gender thing, since I suspect the average woman has had someone step up and take a swing at them less than the average man has. I see the above postures in person, I think someone might get physical. I just can’t find that an understandable -or- reasonable response to a photo.


  40. j (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 10:27 am

    Lots of things are different in our “post-9-11” world. Just making that reference makes me throw up a little. But it’s a truth that is only perpetuated by fear.
    Living in L.A. three years ago, during that period of random terror threats, the Beverly Center happened to be on the list at one point. All the local news stations went out of their way to warn people that it was a potential target and that should they see any suspicious behavior such as people sketching or photographing the building or area, it should be reported immediately. My initial thought, especially since I was enrolled in a Photog class at the time, was that would really suck for the artists in this world that would like nothing more than to be outside enjoying the architecture and landscape. I even asked my sister to come out with me during an evening of night photography for an assignment, should I run into LAPD, whom we all knew to be genuinely fine upstanding human beings who jump to unnecessary conclusions. Thankfully I didn’t have any issues even though I photographed not only random neon signs, but a city hall building (with the police station just across the street).
    Yes, there are very valid points to everything discussed here, about photographing children and protecting them, but also that we’re being conditioned to fear, and here’s my token conspiracist thought, we’re being asked to rat out our fellow citizens. I’m sorry, but I should be allowed to take photographs of federal buildings in all their urban-planning circa late 50s early 60s hideous glory. I should be able to sit at Dupont Circle and photograph the random human assortment. And we shouldn’t be berated for doing it.


  41. Tiff (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 1:40 pm

    Women probably do not have swings taken at them as frequently as men, but we DO have people leering/staring/ogling us far more frequently than men. When it’s just some perv at an outdoor restaurant table it’s one thing, but when said perv is aiming a cameraphone at you, it reaches a whole new level of skeevy and unnerving- whether it’s tangible harm or not, no one wants to be the next Kathy Sierra. So yeah, a hostile and loud reaction to someone aiming a camera at you IS an understandable reaction. If someone is taking my picture without asking my permission, I can only assume it’s because they don’t WANT me to know why. I mean, maybe you just want a photo of whatever noteworthy object I might be dragging along with me, but I have no way of KNOWING that until you tell me.

    Legally protected, yes, certainly. And I will stand next to you and defend it until I’m blue in the face and my shutter-button-finger is cramped and sore. But that doesn’t make it a particularly considerate way to treat one’s fellow sidewalk-occupants.

    (And yes Wayan, I even think it’s jerk behavior when the Metrobloggers do it, which is why I personally do it so seldomly. If I take a random street photo, I try to avoid having recognizable people in it for that very reason, and crop them out whenever possible. Just because I MAY put them on the Internet doesn’t mean I SHOULD.)


  42. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

    Actually, I really did find their reactions understandable. Not entirely polite, either, but I certainly understand the desire to protect your charges, as a nanny.

    *shrug*

    I think this is all a lot of fuss over nothing, honestly.

    Getting harassed by a security guard over building photos from the street? Big deal.

    Getting harassed by two nannies when you try to photo their charges without asking? Not a big deal.

    These are people you’re interacting with. Please try to treat them with kindness and concern. Remembering that will go a long way. Just because I have a right, doesn’t mean that exercising that right won’t come with a social price-tag. Free speech applies this way too. Just because I can say that Wayan may have thought more of his own individual wants and needs in this case, doesn’t prevent Wayan from taking offense.


  43. Don (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 3:01 pm

    “but I certainly understand the desire to protect your charges, as a nanny.”

    I don’t understand exactly what any of you think they are being protected from. Having their picture taken? If someone can come up with an actual harm that isn’t an astronomically unlikely speculation I’d love to hear it.


  44. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on June 26th, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

    I think it’s fair to defend your child from photos from perfect strangers. To do so with violence? No. But firm protestation? Sure.

    Is it physically harmful to the child? No. Is it psychologically harmful to the child? Not really. Possibly your kid could end up Paris Hilton, but only with extremely rich and permissive parents. That falls into your astronomically unlikely speculation.

    However, I can see parents being squicked out by the potential use for those photos for creepy self-gratification on the part of some creep.

    As a result, people protect kids from lenses. I can’t blame them. Seriously. I just can’t.

    Ask before snapping a photo. it’s not hard. It takes maybe 30 seconds.


  45. anonymous2007 (unregistered) on June 27th, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

    I think that in this case, you the photographer were rude and inconsiderate when you insisted on taking the pictures of those innocent babies. First of all, why were you so pressed to take pictures of the children? And yes, if I were in their shoes(the caretakers)I too would have been protective of the children and asked you to stop taking their pictures. Whether it is your legal right or not, if someone asks you not to take their picture, why would you not be considerate enough to stop instead of taunting the individual by citing legalese as it pertains to photography in a public place?
    You sound like one of those know-it-alls who gets a kick out of pushing a person’s button. And to say they played the race card, that’s questionable. There was no reason to play the race card, the incident had to do with courtesy and a maternal instinct to protect the children that were in there care.
    However, you are trying get your 15 minutes of fame and have gone so far as to try to get these women fired!!! What is wrong with you?!

    Have you not read about the numerous accounts of children that turn up missing every day, or pedophiles that take pictures of kids, on playgrounds and pass it off as innocent but then use the pictures in some deviant manner.
    What is your issue?!


  46. anonymous2007 (unregistered) on June 27th, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

    I think that in this case, you the photographer were rude and inconsiderate when you insisted on taking the pictures of those innocent babies. First of all, why were you so pressed to take pictures of the children? And yes, if I were in their shoes(the caretakers)I too would have been protective of the children and asked you to stop taking their pictures. Whether it is your legal right or not, if someone asks you not to take their picture, why would you not be considerate enough to stop instead of taunting the individual by citing legalese as it pertains to photography in a public place?
    You sound like one of those know-it-alls who gets a kick out of pushing a person’s button. And to say they played the race card, that’s questionable. There was no reason to play the race card, the incident had to do with courtesy and a maternal instinct to protect the children that were in there care.
    However, you are trying get your 15 minutes of fame and have gone so far as to try to get these women fired!!! What is wrong with you?!

    Have you not read about the numerous accounts of children that turn up missing every day, or pedophiles that take pictures of kids, on playgrounds and pass it off as innocent but then use the pictures in some deviant manner.
    What is your issue?!


  47. anonymous2007 (unregistered) on June 27th, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

    Yes, you have the right to take a photograph of a person (s) in a public setting, even if they object. But the proper thing to do is to respect a person objecting to your taking their picture, even if you are within your legal rights. Especially, in the case of nannies minding their business and conducting their jobs as caretakers of children left in their care. Perhaps out of a maternalistic instinct they objected to you taking pictures of the babies left in their care. I too would have objected and wondered why you wanted to take pictures of these children even after the caretakers asked you to stop. Why were you so persistent and insensitive? And to justify your behavior by saying that you merely wanted to take a picture of the stroller, is questionable to say the least. If you were so pressed about the stroller you could have gotten on the Internet and found the stroller!
    And now you’ve even gone so far as to try to get these women fired! You are one cruel puppy!

    As a parent, I would not like some stranger coming up to me to ask if he/she could take pictures of my children no matter what the reason given. It’s eerie. We’ve all heard of countless cases of children been snatched, or hearing of some creep snapping pictures of kids at play on a playground, or some bereaved mom who lost her newborn kidnapping a baby and pretending the baby is hers.
    The bottomline here, is that I don’t think the women were wrong to become irate over your insistence that they allow you to photograph the babies in the carrier. They didn’t know you from a can of paint and if something happened to one of the children while in their care because some stranger insisted on taking their pictures, then everyone would have been up in arms screaming that they were incompetent!

    and then the cops discover in the worst case scenario that the perp had all types of pics of kids


  48. Brock (unregistered) on June 28th, 2007 @ 9:02 am

    Don and Anonymous: It was a joke, fer crissakes. I’m not advocating violence OR trying to contribute to the dialogue. Take THAT!


  49. Roger Kruegre (unregistered) on July 14th, 2007 @ 8:26 am

    Sorry, if you shoot candid street, stuff like this happens. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s predictable. The good news is that after it’s happened a few times the adrenaline reaction goes way down. It’s “just another nutcase.”

    When you go out shooting, have in mind why you’re shooting. If you have to stammer and think about it, it looks like you’re lying.

    But nasty/crazy people I don’t even give that, I just move on down the street. If you don’t respond they’ll eventually get tired of their shouted monologue. If you stop and argue all you’re doing is giving the situation a chance to escalate.

    And yeah, I’ll agree with some posters that candid street isn’t a particularly nice or polite thing to do. You either have to make your peace with that or go shoot flower macros.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.