DSLRUsers.com

I realise that there has been some recent commentary on this subject here on the forum, but here is an article and an editorial from today's Courier-Mail:
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17979111%255E952,00.html

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17977467%255E13360,00.html

It seems the two scariest words in the English language of today are "terrorist" and "pedophile". If you want an activity banned, all you need do is mention one or the other!

Naturally parents want to protect their kids, but it seems that all of us are expected to give up increasingly more of our freedom each day.

I think the photographic community needs to be more vocal about these circumstances, as the Geelong Camera Club was recently when a member was visited by the police after taking pix near an oil refinery.

Surely we don't all have to apply for Blue Cards if we want to take our cameras out with us.

On a similar theme, I also spotted this in the SMH today:
http://smh.com.au/news/national/girls-8 ... 27514.html

Now the rockspiders are claiming to be photographers as their cover

On the tv thismorning they had a poll. Something like, should parents not be able to photograph events (sporting etc) to protect against pedophiles.

97% said no!

With all the popularity that photography is getting at the moment, I think people in the media realise that making it a story will be sellable news. If you know your rights, you are fine. I doubt any more laws are going to come in.

MSN have a similar poll going at the moment. A resounding no to a curb!

As both a parent and "ahmmm" photography nut I don't understand the banning of photos at sporting events.

I understand that there may be some sick individuals out there photographing kids for all the wrong reasons, but I just don't see how banning parents taking photographs is going to lessen these sick pricks jollies.......

My two boys play soccer. The eldest is a goal keeper. He stands there with a hat on, a long sleeved shirt, gloves, shorts to his knees, socks that nearly go up to the shorts and his shin guards and boots.........If some sicko pervert gets his jollies out of that then taking a photo or not isn't going to stop him. Next it will be allowing only parents on the fields, and then that doesn't guarantee you won't get a pervert or two still getting off.

This sort of blanket idiocy justs annoys the crappers out of me. Photography isn't the problem here, allowing the pervets to live after they have been caught is the problem.

Oneputt wrote:MSN have a similar poll going at the moment. A resounding no to a curb!

I suggest that we all vote no - in order to make it even more resounding

Here's the link:
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http ... _VOTE&_l=1

Good suggestion John, I've voted No. The way things are going future photographers will only be able to take shots of flowers, no shots of people, or buildings or wide sweeping landscapes...

Finding a reasonable and appropriate balance is very difficult, and I think the "authorities" find it easier to
simply adopt ex treme measures.

And yes Trevor, those key words seem to invoke a pavlovian reaction. I fear that the chronic adoption of
these ex treme measures tends to be counter prodcutive anyway.

nearly 10,000 say no on the poll, 300 or so saying yes.

Heath Bennett wrote:nearly 10,000 say no on the poll, 300 or so saying yes.

trouble is a million people could say no in one of these polls and it really will make no difference. If a ban is in place or people think photography is not allowed we still have problems.

And Deb what about taking pics of your kids at the beach where they are less clothed? Something I now take great care to avoid less people think I'm a perv and yet that means I miss out on some great images (hell I don't even point my camera in the direction of kids even if it's a wide angle lens and I'm taking a landscape shot)

Stubbsy

Like Greg has said, and I quote "finding a reasonable and appropriate balance is very difficult".

Because I enjoy photography, I am probably more likely to think that someone snapping pictures isn't necessarily a pervert on the hunt. But I can also understand why parents don't like cameras being focused on their kids.

I am very uncomfortable taking my camera to the beach because I don't want to be harrased by parents. I very carefully point it at my children, making people surrounding me aware that they are my kids. I hate that I have to do this but because of all the bad publicity I do.

I don't have an answer for you Stubbsy. I haven't been in that situation where I felt my kids were threatened......but the dr who kept patting my eldest son's hand long after he needed to have any physical contact with him, and telling me what a gorgeous looking boy he was and wanting to know school he goes to when we have had problems with people trying to pick up kids on their way to school in this area........well that one set my guts achurning.

People skills solve the problem. Get in there, be friendly, and soon you'll have a bunch of friends and a heap of good shots.

Unbelieveable!!

How many of these grubs are out there in society? I'm talking about peadophiles not photographers

I just can't believe that we all have these restraints imposed upon us because of an extremely small minority, who when they eventually get caught get a slap on the wrist and possibly still keep the photos they have taken so as not to invade their civil liberties.

At what point will the poor old photographer be allowed to photograph what he or she wants (within reason)?

If the authorities are really serious about this matter then there should be a total ban on the cameras posing as telephones as we are unable to tell when a photo ninja is taking a photograph or making a telephone call or texting.

At least with our equipment you can tell when the camera is pointed at you!!

I can't find the article but I recently read that a greater majority of photos actually printed (processed) in the UK were from camera phones and not from "real cameras".

HappyFotographer wrote:Stubbsy

Like Greg has said, and I quote "finding a reasonable and appropriate balance is very difficult".

Because I enjoy photography, I am probably more likely to think that someone snapping pictures isn't necessarily a pervert on the hunt. But I can also understand why parents don't like cameras being focused on their kids.

I am very uncomfortable taking my camera to the beach because I don't want to be harrased by parents. I very carefully point it at my children, making people surrounding me aware that they are my kids. I hate that I have to do this but because of all the bad publicity I do.

I don't have an answer for you Stubbsy. I haven't been in that situation where I felt my kids were threatened......but the dr who kept patting my eldest son's hand long after he needed to have any physical contact with him, and telling me what a gorgeous looking boy he was and wanting to know school he goes to when we have had problems with people trying to pick up kids on their way to school in this area........well that one set my guts achurning.

I think you've summed it up well. We've moved from complacency to dread. While this leads to some unnecessary bad times, on balance it's still probably a safer outcome. Just makes it harder for us. eg my beach scenario makes sense to me (no pics), but your soccer one does not for the reasons you've already outlined. But then I'm assuming a perv gets off on near naked kids. Maybe they get off on thinking about removing all that sporting paraphernalia. One thing I learnt when studying psychology for my degree is that we can sexually fixate on all sorts of weird things.

Somebody could be hiding behind their curtains snapping photos of my kids as they play with their mates in the park in front of our home.

This I cannot control and will refuse to be concerned about it. I could go grey worrying about it (oh right, I already am grey ).

Touch my kids though and I will risk a jail term.

stubbsy wrote: One thing I learnt when studying psychology for my degree is that we can sexually fixate on all sorts of weird things.

Sorry to take this OT for a moment, but Peter... you needed a degree to work that out

Back OT it is a sad reflection of the days we live in, I spent the long weekend visiting my grandparents and enjoyed a few hours looking over old and really old photos from their childhood and beyond. From a time when you too 1 or 2 "Holiday snaps" if you were lucky, to me taking 1000+ during my stay here, they had more "freedom" in what they could point their camera at then I do now... it's simply ludacrious.

HappyFotographer wrote:Somebody could be hiding behind their curtains snapping photos of my kids as they play with their mates in the park in front of our home.

This I cannot control and will refuse to be concerned about it. I could go grey worrying about it (oh right, I already am grey ).

Touch my kids though and I will risk a jail term.

Agreed

It's outrageous really, anybody was a SLR will be branded as perverts or terrorists.

I blame those housewives that sit at home and watch too much of those allegedly "current affair" programs.

Does that have to do with age though? I guess I'm relatively young compared to you guys, and I'm not sure if those stupid general public would brand me as a terrorist or paedophile...

Your never too young Grev, im 23.. 24 next month.. and I wouldnt even consider taking a camera to the beach by myself.. id want atleast 3 or 4 other photographers with me.. mainly for backup.. Todays society is too self concious and perverted really... and they cant handle anything... first its photographers, then its kids with mobile phones with inbuilt cameras walking into school toilets to take photos of other kids.. Seriously, if someone wanted to be a perv they wouldnt walk around carrying a big camera.. with the modern technology today, they only need a pinhole camera that shops use to spy on us so they can perv on kids.... hell, they are now selling USB webcams at some computer shops that are dressed up to look like plush toys.. like teddybears.. with the camera hidden inside... pricing for $19 or some crap.. its getting beyond the joke we are getting blamed for evertything

Tim

I went to the Australia Day celebrations and without a doubt the best pics were of kids with the flags in their hands, the aussie flag transfers on their cheeks, running around, enjoying the day.

Did I take a single image of that, no. Why? because I would have hated for anyone to question what I was up to, and I would have hated for any parent to have had doubts as to what was happening. I'm annoyed I didn't take the photos, but I'm also annoyed that we have to worry about such things.

Sad really.

Such a sad state of affairs. It is easier to conform the good, instead of the bad amongst us because the good listen. The bad will ignore the rules and do whatever they want to.

It's also MUCH easier to pick a photographer out in a crowd than a pervert (the camera & long lens usually gives it away)

There's no difference between such a law and , let's say the ban on fireworks. The good and responsible amongst us would make sure the area is safe, clear, have a backup plan in case something went wrong and would use their judgement as to the time of day they were used. The bad amongst us will not care about any of the above and will do whatever they want.

What is the result - nobody can use them (unless you're a professional - or you live in Canberra ). The good resist the temptation for fear of getting into trouble and the bad continue on, flaunting the rules - whilst the good watch on in disdain.

Unfortunately, it's the way of the world. If everyone had a conscience & acted responsibly, there'd be no need for half the laws we have today...

My $0.02

So....how many female photographers get stopped from snapping pics at the footy or on the beach? Is this a gender based problem?

The address for letters to the Courier mail and the SMH

letters@smh.com.au,

cmletters@qnp.newsltd.com.au

Just send something saying "I take photos and I am not a pervert or terrorist I reject the stereotyping of all photographers ads being bad people that is current in todays media".


How often do you see photographers positively portrayed in TV or Movies and how often are they twisted murdering psychos?


I think the message our government and media is spreading is "Be Afraid!" It is easier to control a population that is fearful.

 PS I do feel self conscious about going into toilets with all my camera gear!

So you guys are afraid to take photos lest some do-gooder get annoyed at you? If that's the case, the do-gooders have already won!

Just my $0.02, but I say get out there and if there's a shot worth taking then don't be afraid take it. If people get stroppy, call them on their paranoia and tell them what's goddamn what! If you're not a paedophile, perv or a terrorist, don't stand for being treated like one.

MCWB wrote:So you guys are afraid to take photos lest some do-gooder get annoyed at you? If that's the case, the do-gooders have already won!

Just my $0.02, but I say get out there and if there's a shot worth taking then don't be afraid take it. If people get stroppy, call them on their paranoia and tell them what's goddamn what! If you're not a paedophile, perv or a terrorist, don't stand for being treated like one.

Hear Hear Trent!!!

I have a scary story:

this is true also.
my friend was driving home late at night around 11pm and upon rounding a corner found 2 young children laid down in the middle of the road.
when he pulled right up to them they refused to move and gave him mouthfuls of abuse.
He apparently knew where they lived because these kids often run free.
I believe they are the order of 2-4 years old.
so, he took his digital camera out and took some shots of them laid on the road and went to the parents house to show them and to suggest that he keep them off the road for obvious reasons.
The parent said words to the effect of "how dare you take photos of my kids, you are a pedo and I am calling the cops"
he was physically restrained until the cops arrived and they took my friend to the station.
no charges were laid, they made him delete the photos. his name and address was recorded.
The police said nothing to the parents who let these young kids roam the streets at all hours of the night.

Steve

**Boogle**

Steve that is scary, and just shots how topsee-turvey things can be these days. Certain children that small shouldn't be out, shouldn't be unsupervised and DOCS or someone needs to take a long hard look at a family that lets kids out in such a dangerous situation. Sounds like the whole family is a bunch or drongo's but it's the parents that should know better the kids just don't have any positive role models. (All of the above is just my opinion, not a wide sweeping statement on all of society).

I am amazed also.
he took the shots to show the parents the hazards their kids were up against, in case they didnt know that their unsupervised kids were in fact playing in the traffic. The parents apparently didnt care less. (obviously, by having young kids out that late anyhow!!) but what surprised me also was the complete apathy shown by the cops.
At least common sense prevailed and they let him go after seeing the images deleted from the camera.

another sad sign of the times I am afraid.

Steve

HappyFotographer wrote:Somebody could be hiding behind their curtains snapping photos of my kids as they play with their mates in the park in front of our home.

And that is the point that all of these idiots continually miss.

Somebody who has something to hide is going to hide it.

Somebody who is out in the open, clearly taking photos, is less likely to be doing something that might be regarded as sinister.

As avkomp's case illustrates, it's no fun even if you're on the right side of the law - when it comes to petty idiotic complaints by the narrow minded retarded sector of society.

But I love how the mass ignorance of pedophilia is fuelling increasing constraints on the freedoms of children to be themselves - with the intention of letting them savor the innocence of their childhood and saving them from the adult world, but in effect forces them into an adult world quicker...

It's a real shame parents who intend to truly protect their kids from the harms of society don't seek the facts for themselves -
A child is far more likely to be molested by a family member, friend or relative than by a total stranger.

Just as nearly 96% of murder victims know their killer... this 'stranger danger' ideology our society operates under is way overrated and needs updating IMHO.

Onyx wrote:As avkomp's case illustrates, it's no fun even if you're on the right side of the law - when it comes to petty idiotic complaints by the narrow minded retarded sector of society.

But I love how the mass ignorance of pedophilia is fuelling increasing constraints on the freedoms of children to be themselves - with the intention of letting them savor the innocence of their childhood and saving them from the adult world, but in effect forces them into an adult world quicker...

It's a real shame parents who intend to truly protect their kids from the harms of society don't seek the facts for themselves -
A child is far more likely to be molested by a family member, friend or relative than by a total stranger.

Just as nearly 96% of murder victims know their killer... this 'stranger danger' ideology our society operates under is way overrated and needs updating IMHO.

Absolutely agree

I got knocked back entry with my camera at the day on the green concert in Rutherglen on the weekend. Spewing - point and shoot numbers only. Made me really angry too.

Willy wombat wrote:I got knocked back entry with my camera at the day on the green concert in Rutherglen on the weekend. Spewing - point and shoot numbers only. Made me really angry too.

You should have told them you still need to point it & shoot it

I got knocked back entry with my camera at the day on the green concert in Rutherglen on the weekend. Spewing - point and shoot numbers only. Made me really angry too.

did they give a reason??
perhaps your shots were going to jeapordise sales of the movie or presentation book being made from the day??


steve

I'm firmly in the "I'm a photographer, not a perv or a terrorist you dope" camp.

But.

At my boy's 1st sports day, naturally I wanted to record the moment, and took my camera along. Being aware of all the furore around cameras and kids, I asked his teacher if it was OK for me to photograph his races.

I was surprised by her answer; no problem to photograph the nursery races, but under no circumstances could I photograph the older kids, as there were two kids whose parents had instructed the school that their kids are not to be photographed as they are in hiding from abusive and violent fathers, who could stumble on a picture of their kids and identify where they're living now.

Made me realise that there is an appropriate time to restrict the photography of children, but IMHO any public event should be OK. If parents don't want their kids to be recognised they should make them wear false beards

avkomp wrote:

I got knocked back entry with my camera at the day on the green concert in Rutherglen on the weekend. Spewing - point and shoot numbers only. Made me really angry too.

did they give a reason??
perhaps your shots were going to jeapordise sales of the movie or presentation book being made from the day??

The reason was "my camera was too professional and in my bag i had too many lenses".

Very angry that other people got to take their non-dslr cameras in and i was discriminated against because i take my photography a little more seriously... shit heads

I could rant about this all day. The people with whom i work would attest to this.

obviously the advertising and conditions brochure stated very clearly that too professional looking cameras are prohibited as are too many lenses.........

Steve

obviously the advertising and conditions brochure stated very clearly that too professional looking cameras are prohibited as are too many lenses.........

Clause #42
Any camera deemed too professional be it by shot capacity, megapixel, brand or the ability to use multiple lens or any other factor at the discretion of the organiser can be refused entry

Clause #43
Anyone one needing or using a backpack, shoulder bag, or any bag/case/container with a capacity more then 5L may be refused entry by the organiser, in particular any bag containing mulitple lens, or bearing professional looking logos or motifs are strictly forbidden.


Edit : PS this is very tongue in cheek, but sadly probably not to far from the truth for some events.

hmmm. well I guess they gotcha.
still blows though. not as if you are doing them out of any sales etc.
the growing breed of dslrs all look more professional than a P and S.

Steve

Yes it is sad it has all come to this...

But I still take pics of the kids, I have not yet been questioned. I have however stopped taking pics of my kids at swimming lessons. I will get clarification on the lessons one at some stage.

But at school swim/sport carnivals I will take pics and did so last year. I didnt have any complaints, especially when I did the DVD slide show and their little Jonny was doing something funny.

I have also applied for a Blue Card, not for photos but for TRY RUGBY program I help out with..

Soon we will need a press pass and blue card hanging around our necks

BUt I dont know what we can do

MATT

I peronally believe that a blue card is discriminatory.

I demand a pink card!

But what is to stop some twisted sicko gettting a blue card anyway???


MATT