Pictures Taken In Public - With A Twist

[NSweaney at tulsacash.com (Nathan Sweaney)]

Maybe I forgot to wear my tinfoil hat this morning, and I apologize in
advance for insulting anyone (or everyone), but I'm not sure that I
agree that this constitutes child exploitation.  I suppose in a strictly
literal sense "exploit" can mean "use" but in reality the concept of
child exploitation suggests a malicious or cruel intent. At the very
least it implies that something is unfair about the activity.  So is it
really unfair for a photographer to take pictures of the public & then
sell them?

What about the pictures of 9/11 that showed the firefighters running out
of the ashes.  Were those men exploited because some photographer caught
them on camera & sold the images?  Or what about the pictures of kids
crying after any of those school shootings that happen every few years?
And those kids holding up a sign that says something funny at a football
game, is it exploitation for the camera to broadcast their image to
millions of people?  

I understand the desire to protect your kids, I've got one of my own,
but at the same time we've got to be careful not to go too far. The
constant bane of society is the necessity to balance one person's
ability to express their freedoms without infringing on the next
person's.  The real deciding factor always comes down to the actual
risks versus the costs.  What actual, specific danger does your child
face from this course of events?  Is it enough of a danger to warrant
banning all photography of children without written parental consent? 

And to take it one step further, does it really matter that it's a
child?  If you're beautiful wife happens to be strolling down the beach
when someone takes a picture of the sunset, should they be restricted
from selling it? Is "exploiting" an unknowing woman without consent any
different than "exploiting" children in the same manner?

Again, I understand your concern, and the reasonable thing is certainly
for media outlet to remove the picture at your request.  But I don't
think the law is the right way to about it.  I'm all for privacy, but
the moment your kid's big head prevents me from selling my awesome
picture of an eagle pooping on Lincoln's monument, that's when it's gone
too far.  


-----Original Message-----
From: pauldotcom-bounces at mail.pauldotcom.com
[mailto:pauldotcom-bounces at mail.pauldotcom.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Gimbel
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:38 AM
To: PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Pauldotcom] Pictures Taken In Public - With A Twist

Thanks for the post on this Robert,  I am going to post this to my 
facebook (sans incriminating information) warning my FB friends on this 
danger

Jeff

Robert Miller wrote:
> While I know this is going to boil down to it happened in a public
place 
> stop my whining... but this still upsets me and I have no legal
recourse WTF
> <rant>
>
> A few weeks back my son, 12 years old, was at the local library after 
> school working on the computer when a local newspaper reporter came in

> and took pictures of the people in the library using its services.
The 
> story was regarding the fact that my county is considering closing
some 
> of the libraries.  Now after the interviews were completed and the 
> pictures were taken, the reporter told my kid to tell his folks his 
> picture would be in the paper that coming Sunday.  So as any parent
who 
> gave a flying crap about their kid would pick the paper up to look at 
> the article.  As said to my son his picture was nice and big with his 
> first and last name along with a little blurb about why he don't want 
> the library closed.
>
> At first this really pissed me off since my son is under age and no
one 
> asked for my permission, let alone offer a business card or a means to

> contact anything about the article.  After a few days of mumbling, and

> some deep investigation I found that I have ZERO legal recourse for
this 
> happening so I rolled with the punch and picked my self up telling my 
> kid he displayed himself very well and expressed himself in his 
> statement like a young man should.  Then it hit me...
>
> I was on the local newspapers website and noticed my son's picture in
an 
> article, not written the same as the newspaper itself but still 
> displaying my son's picture, well now I get concerned and begin to do 
> some digging on the metadata (thanks larry) to find misc normal data
but 
> nothing too detailed.  Then it smacked me in the face like a truck
load 
> of bricks!  Those (stealing a statement from Jack's comments earlier 
> just because I can :-) ) "... monkey sodomizing rat bastards..." have
my 
> son's picture posted on the website for sale.  They are selling my
son's 
> picture for profit, WHAT IN <many fool words omitted for John's
safety> 
> gives these people the right to make a profit off my 12 year old son!
>
> Well I had sent an email to a well known photographer regarding this
and 
> he consulted his lawyer only to find these newspaper organizations can

> take the pictures of children and then sell them on their website as 
> "fine art", while I love my kid to death he is far from "fine art".
The 
> response this person got from their attorney was that unless a local
law 
> prohibits the taking of children pictures in public places and selling

> them I have no leg to stand on, which I have faced the fact.  It just 
> burns my butt that a child who knows no better, well didn't at the
time, 
> was exploited to save a library and someone else NOT trying to raise
the 
> money for the library is making a profit off this, no matter how small

> that profit might be.  The attorney said if you want privacy don't
leave 
> your home, WHAT THE HELL IS THAT CRAP, he is a child!  Does this mean
a 
> child predator can sit 100 feet from a school and take pictures of 
> children walking home from school, throw up a website, call themselves
a 
> freelance photographer, and sell these pictures as "fine art".
>
> We can borrow money from China and bail out businesses that made bad 
> choices but we can protect children from the basic protection of 
> exploitation for any reason, so long as that reason is a sad story of
a 
> library closing and the newspaper can sell a couple prints.
>
> </rant>
>
> Sorry all this one just really hits me hard that a newspaper /  
> freelance photographer has all these freedoms to exploit citizens
while 
> we fight to protect so much...
>
> - Robert
> arch3angel
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com