Photos in the park.

[Percyfish3rd]

I recently took my 3 year old granddaughter to the park, and took some photos of her on the slide. As we were leaving a woman said "excuse me, I saw you taking some photos, of that little girl. My daughter was in some of them 8n the background. 8 want you to delete the photos. If you don't I' ll call the police, it's illegal to take photos of other peoples children". I pointed out to her it wasn't illegal, and I'd rather keep the photos. Her husband then joined us, and said as I was using a " professional camera" (there is no such thing) he would shove it into a part of my anatomy I won't mention. I decided to delete them, after all they would be easy enough to recover at home, but how many people would have done the same thing as this couple, even though the photos weren't specifically of their child?

@An0n0n0n

What you did was legal but she was polite to start with and for all you know they could be in witness protection and be scared of stuff going online.

If she was in witness protection, she'd know the law regarding photos.

DynamoKev, but it's just the case of some parents are more careful or anxious than others.
Personally, it doesn't bothers me much if my dc was in the background of someone's photo. But I can also see other people may feel different. And mutual respect and understanding in difference in opinion makes life so much more pleasant.

@DynamoKev
Has anyone actually said that everyone is in witness protection?
No, I don't think so?
Surely it's not so far outside of your imagination and empathy levels to realise that not everyone has the same circumstances.....
Even if it's nothing to do with "witness protection" or "safety concerns" what gives a person the right to put a photo of another child on social media?
They might have no privacy concerns, but their own reasons for not putting their child "out there."
Their choice.
Just like it is someone putting their own child on social media.
You (general you) don't get to choose for other people though.

I have to ask ppl to delete photos if I see them taking pictures as my charge is adopted. And her photo isn’t allowed to be on any form of social media for obvious reasons. It’s awkward but I’m protecting her identity. Maybe these ppl have a similar reason.

As it happens I know two people who have very successfully managed to avoid being found by people they don’t want to talk to - and in neither case has it required them to ask strangers to delete pictures of them in the background of other peoples pics.
I really think it’s out of proportion - however I appreciate people feel differently and as it goes I don’t go around putting pics of strangers on SM - and I refuse to use Facebook at all.

[quote GoldSlipper]@52andblue while, technically, people can take photographs of anything they like within a "public place" I'm certain the rules change when it comes to the commercial side of using them (such as in your case).

I'm no expert but it is my understanding that since the photographer is using this for commercial gain that he would require a model release form signed by a parent/guardian. However this is only the case if it is a close up type shot. If you child is one of a large crowd then there is a loophole unfortunately.[/quote]
@Goldslipper - thats interesting - thanks.

He knew I wasn't happy as I tutted at the time and moved her away.
It's a fullface pic of only her taken from about 4ft away - it's highly identifiable of a girl of 12. I was not happy about it at all and especially about it being for Sale for £100+. No one asked my Dd or me to do that.

@DynamoKev
‘I love how everyone is in witness protection. It’s actually a wonder there are actually any unsolved crimes when people can be easily found by looking at random strangers social media‘

@HOkieCOkie

I have to ask ppl to delete photos if I see them taking pictures as my charge is adopted. And her photo isn’t allowed to be on any form of social media for obvious reasons. It’s awkward but I’m protecting her identity. Maybe these ppl have a similar reason.

You may have to ask, but it doesn't mean that the person taking the photo has to delete it

Personally I would probably have deleted them when first asked as I hate confrontation and I am extremely shy. However, I definitely would have called the police as well if I had been threatened and I would have stayed there until they arrived.

If their child was not allowed to be in photos for some reason such as adoption then they could have calmly explained that and then any reasonable person would either have deleted them or cropped the child out etc. The fact that they went straight to threats makes me think that this isn't the case.

@cocoloco987

If they didn't want their child in the background they should have asked you to wait while they got her out of the way. Ridiculous, but you probably did the right thing in the circumstances knowing you can get them back anyway. Don't suppose you wanted a fuss in front of your grandchild

No! The OP should have waited for other children to move out of the shot. Parents shouldn't have to keep looking out for people who might take photos of their children in playgrounds!

Yep, if someone politely asked to see me crop a child out of a photo because the child was adopted and couldn't be shown on social media, then I'd do that.

Being rudely challenged, told bullshit (ie 'its illegal') and accused of having some sort of nefarious reasons for taking pictures is guaranteed to get my back up and will result in the challenger being told to fuck off.

That is exactly what I did when some nasty minded bitch mistook our macro lens for a zoom lens and immediately lept to the conclusion that my OH and I were lurking in the reeds taking pics of spotty teenagers in life vests and shorts...

In fact we were taking pics of damselflies and dragonflies and there weren't even kids in the background never mind the foreground!

You'd have thought the fact we were pointing our camera at the reeds and river bank and not the canoes full of teenagers in the middle of the river was a bit of a clue, but evidently not.

There are ways of approaching these things, if she'd come over and said 'ooh what are you photographing on the riverbank' I'd have nerdily shown her the pics of scarce blues and emeralds, the lovely shot of a darter emerging from its larval stage...

But jump to conclusions and hurl around horrible accusations and make demands I am not obliged in any way to fulfill and I will get pretty arsey back!

How do they know their child was in the background. I always try and close up when taking photos of DS, so they wouldn't know whether OP had done that. also if I do manage to get an image of another child in the photo, if then posting on FB etc I would crop the other child out if possible

If the police do get involved with an incident like this, just be aware that they may not actually know the law. A few years ago an acquaintance was detained by police for taking photos, It was a hobby, photos were not of children, and he was released without charge very quickly. When he looked into the problem he found many similar cases and a group of photographers had contacted the Home Office and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and they now carry small cards with their responses to show to ill-informed police:

Home Office: It is not an offence to take photographs in public places. This includes photographs of children, police officers or PCSOs. You do not need someone's permission to take their photograph, but you may need their permission to publish it commercially. There is no 'licence' for photography.

ACPO: Police Officers may not prevent someone taking photographs in public places unless they suspect criminal intent. Once an image has been recorded, police have no powers to view, delete or confiscate it without a court order. (Under the Terrorism Act 2000 police can stop someone without reasonable suspicion providing the area has been officially designated a likely target for an attack)

If a person wouldn't delete a photo having been told the child is adopted, they are a massive arsewipe.

Everyone knows the legal position, but a legal right doesn't mean you have to be a dreadful person.

I don't take a photo of my kids if there are others in the background and I dont like when people are snapping near mine and move them. One time in the park I had someone follow us each time we moved (at least 5 different times) where she continued taking pics that I knew had my kids in them so we left. I don't put my photos on SM and know that others do and I dont like the idea of my kids being put up on FB etc.

You could have shown them the photos to see if they still minded you keeping them and if they did you should have deleted them. If someone asked me to delete a photo I would do it no problem.

The child could’ve been in care or in witness protection and they could’ve been worried you would’ve posted them online.
His behaviour was completely unacceptable though.

I would have lied and said only the subject in foreground was in focus and anything in the background was blurry, most of my holiday snaps (from previous covid days!), have got other people's kids in the background

I would have asked them if they ever walk down the high street, go into shops, banks petrol stations etc with the child and if they do, do they ask the hundreds of organisations that take pictures of their child to delete them?

The husband was threatening and I feel angry on your behalf OP! Is the world so insane now that nobody can take any pictures in any public place in case a random person caught in the shot is in a witness protection programme or in care? If their life was so much in danger I’d suggest staying out of such public places in the first place!

If someone asked me to delete photos I had of their child I’d just do it. Granted, the way she asked wasn’t particularly nice, but surely you’ve got more opportunities to take photos of your own child when hers isn’t in the background. There are thousands and thousands of cases of domestic abuse where children are involved, if someone is worried about safeguarding their own child why would you be so spiteful to refuse. The fact that some people think vulnerable children should just stay at home rather than people’s photography be compromised is just wow.

Why do so many people assume I'm putting these photos on social media? I have never, and will never use Facebook, Twitter etc. Why on earth would I put photos or other personal information on line for strangers to see? It's worse than leaving your diary open for everyone to read. As I stated, several other people were taking photos on their phones, yet they were ignored. Why does delating photos make a difference? The photos are still there. A more polite requet from the couple would have been far better.

If someone had threatened me like that I would have called the police myself.

As for the parents who say their children must never be photographed in public, wel then you’d better never leave the house, because your children are captured in virtually every street they walk down, every shop they go into, on CCTV, on people’s cameras in the background, on news reports where someone is reporting from somewhere.

It’s not the world’s responsibility to make sure your children don’t appear in pictures, it’s yours.

And all this “what if the child is in witness protection,” drivel is just that, total bollocks. We live in a public world. Get over it.

Their child maybe adopted or LAC.

I don't think it's great to take pictures without checking with other parents first.

Their child maybe adopted or LAC. let’s hope not with such vile parents who threaten violence in public places…

Aside from that, the OP didn’t take pictures of their child, the OP took a picture of her child, and there happened to be other children in the background because it was, y’know, a park.

This obsession with having your child possibly appear in the background of a photo is ridiculous in the extreme. If the child is visible on a picture then the child is visible in the park where the threat to the child could equally be happening to walk by.

The only way to protect children from being spotted in public is to keep them inside, forever.