fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

Submit A Story

Man under police investigation for taking a photo of a child at Starbucks

by 29 Comments

A woman from Montgomery County recently reported that a stranger was taking photos of her child at Starbucks in East Norriton Township. She spoke to a Starbucks employee who didn’t ask the man to leave, so she reported the man to the police and sparked an investigation.

 

When the woman noticed that the man was taking photos, she first reported it to the employee. However, the barista reportedly told her that the man had been there all week and that they couldn’t ask him to leave. The mother then reported it to the police, who have identified the man and are currently investigating the case.

Generally speaking, it’s not illegal to take photos in public. East Norriton Township Police Detective Michael Hendricks confirmed it to NBC10. However, he added that it is disturbing if someone photographs your child. So, even though it’s technically not illegal, Hendricks said that you should still call the police if you notice someone photographing your child. And if you’re a photographer, ask for permission before you take photos of children, even though you’re in public.

We can’t argue that some of the most iconic photos feature children (Napalm Girl comes to mind). And photographing in public is legal unless it’s indicated otherwise. However, I would suggest you ask parents for permission before you take photos of their children, just to be on the safe side. As a photographer, I always ask for permission. And if I had children, I guess I’d feel uneasy seeing someone photographing them without my knowledge.

What are your thoughts on this? Was the photographer supposed to ask for permission?

[via NBC10]

Related posts:

Laguna Beach changes Non-Commercial photo permit rule after complaints of the public Photographers and Their Constitutional Rights: A Few Words from an NPPA Attorney US Marshal Appears To Attack Pedestrian Photographer; Knocks Phone From Hands, Smashes It With Foot How I managed to get my stolen camera back
  • JarFil

    In a perfect world, there shouldn’t be anything “disturbing” about someone taking photos of a child. In reality, I bet most photographers don’t have ill intentions either… but the media has been telling otherwise for quite some time.

    • Whatdoyknow

      Unfortunately some people have a tendency to go over board, being their nature!

  • Chris

    Is being in a Starbucks the same as being in public? Or is it considered in a private space, subject to the approval of the Starbucks’ management?

    • Rick Savage

      Starbucks is private property subject to the owner’s control. A public space is a park, sidewalk, a government building. It is a space subject to governmental control. Since in the U.S. the government is us the People public space is controlled by laws enforced by a government official.

  • It depends on the country. In Cuba children are photographed all the time by tourists without any parent consent and also with no ill intentions whatsoever. Same in other countries and situations. I guess as in everything, common sense is in order. In the US I would not dare to even ask for permission. In my country, no problem at all if the photo is taken in context with a story.

  • Jeff Greene

    The Starbucks location, like every retail location, is private property. Photographer’s must ask permission before photographing anything, or anyone, while on the premises. This goes for hotels, shopping centers, and indoor malls as well. All private property.
    Don’t mistake being “open to the public” as the same as public property.

    All that being said, common sense should make it obvious that you introduce yourself and ask permission before photographing a child.

    • ba78O{}

      You’re actually allowed to photograph as much as you want on private property open to the public, until they tell you to stop doing it, or unless they have a sign expressly forbidding it. You don’t need their permission before hand.

      Secondly Starbucks probably has CCTV cameras on site surveilling things and probably has that kid on tape before hand. It’s weird that the former didn’t provoke anything, but the guy taking the picture did. People are irrational in some ways.

  • jagigen

    Starbucks or not. It’s only down to the respective countries laws.
    Unless it’s outspoken as for example a sign it’s allowed to photograph a private establishment in Sweden.
    Although they of course have the right to ask you to stop taking photos inside their shop and then you have to comply.

  • yes I do, you never photograph children without a parents permission.

  • I remember when you saw a child doing something cute or making an adorable face that you captured the moment. What a sad world we live in.

    • Frank Thebunny

      make your own children. Here in france you can’t take pictures like this in public, without authorization of the person. And you can’t share it without written authorization if you can recognize the person.

      • Dragan

        You are delusional! You certainly CAN, and as almost everywhere you cant just sell it in commercial purposes. (you can sell it as an art print though)

        • Tasha

          In a number of countries consent is needed for just taking a photograph of one or more identifiable people, not to mention publishing it and/or using it commercially even if the person is in a public place. The following is a list of countries where consent is needed for one or more of the mentioned situations.

          France: Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see explanation below)

          Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
          Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
          Article 9 of French Civil Code states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private life”.
          This is generally considered to include one’s right to their own image, even if it is taken in a public space.

          According to case law and legal doctrine, photographs taken of (one or more) individuals require authorisation. Just taking someone’s photo without consent (in private or public space) can be considered as an invasion of privacy and gives them the right to claim for cessation of the wrongful conduct. Everyone is legally protected from unauthorised distribution, publication or commercialisation of a picture of himself. The permission has to be interpreted in a strict way (only to the extent expressly consented to by the subject).

          Source: Commons:Country specific consent requirements Wiki

        • Dragan

          In France in a number of legal cases the judges in courts of law have declared that photographers have the right to take and publish photos of people in public without their knowledge or consent as long as the photos contribute to the public’s exchange of ideas and opinions; for example, a legal case between a street photographer and a non-celebrity woman appearing in a photograph taken without her knowledge and published without her consent in the photographer’s book decreed that the photographer’s freedom of expression in taking and publishing street photography without the consent of the subject is an important freedom in a democracy: the judge said that “the right to control one’s image must yield when a photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions, deemed “indispensable” to a democratic society.”[56] Therefore, even though the privacy right in public exists in France, a photograph of a specific identifiable person in a public place can still be taken and published without the subject’s consent as long as it can be shown that the photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions to such a degree that would make the photographer’s freedom of expression right more important to the public interest than the subject’s privacy right. It is therefore wrong to assume that it’s always “illegal” to take and publish photos of people without their consent in France, what happens in reality is that the photographer has the legal right to freedom of expression, the subject has the legal right of privacy, and the public has the legal right of exchanging ideas and opinions, and when the subject’s right to privacy would threaten the public’s right to exchange ideas and opinions the photographer’s right to freedom of expression is considered superior to the subject’s right to privacy because otherwise the public’s right to exchange of ideas and opinions couldn’t be served. But this balancing of the legal rights has to take place separately for each photograph that becomes the object of argumentation in a legal case, it cannot be said with certainty in which cases the public’s right to exchange ideas and opinions is superior to the individual’s right to privacy or vice-versa because the written law code of France specify two competing classes of legal rights (the photographer’s freedom of expression and the society’s right to exchange ideas and opinions versus the individual’s right to privacy) without specifying in which cases one right should be considered superior to the other, thus it would be wrong to assume that the privacy right makes illegal all photographs taken and published without consent, but at the same time it would also be wrong to assume that the society’s right to exchange ideas and opinions makes legal all photographs taken and published without consent, and the cases in which one right is superior to the other are to be decided by the judges when relevant legal cases reach the courts, so, in effect, it is the judge’s opinion which declares the taking and/or publication of a specific photograph illegal or legal rather than the written legal code. Because of this balancing of the legal rights in France it is therefore important that photographers and the publishers of their photographs consider how the photos contribute to society’s exchange of ideas and opinions when taking or publishing the photos. Furthermore, the mode of publication might impact the balancing of the legal rights, for example a photo in an encyclopaedia article would be viewed more favourably by a judge compared to a mode of publication not traditionally seen as benefiting the public through education, because it can easily be shown that an encyclopaedia article assists the public in forming and exchanging ideas and opinions.
          https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France

  • I never photograph anyone, child or adult, without asking.

  • Wildlife photography – you almost can’t go wrong …

    • Whatdoyknow

      If you mean ‘use a telelens’, that’s what I do as you need to be virtually invisble to capture he moment. U

  • suruha

    As a parent, I would feel better if asked, but, it depends. If someone is taking a shot of all children, or most of them, that seems different than one child being the sole target. The photographer’s behavior says a lot.

    It is unfortunate that we tend to be ‘weirded out’ by a person taking photos of a child. But, there is always that one person that causes alarm. No parent is willing to take a chance that this person isn’t a pervert with the photography as his ‘cover’? I get that!

  • wayward

    For all you saying “As a parent, I would feel better if asked”, how much of a difference would/does it make if the photographer is a woman..?
    A lot of us have noticed that women easily get a pass on photographing a lot of the same things that men do, especially children out in public. There seems to be a rush to judgment if it is a man. And I bet the size of the camera has a lot to do with it as well. You see a DSLR, and to many automatically assume you must be up to no good, while a cell phone hardly draws much attention anymore (unless the person is obviously targeting someone).

    • suruha

      With all due respect, it wouldn’t make any difference to me. I was assaulted by a woman, so, I am leery of either one. I see what you are saying, though. There are kidnappings where a woman is used as the bait.
      I believe it has much to do with what we have ingrained into our belief systems. Our experiences and what we have been taught – both at home and in society. We just have to take each one as a separate situation.
      “As a parent…” I wonder how folks with no children would handle this if with a child, like a niece or nephew, for example.

  • FreelancerX

    Come on. This is creepy, and it’s a false equivalency to compare it to something like Napalm Girl. If you’re a photographer and you happen to be in the middle of a war zone and you see a naked child severely wounded by war games, then snap the picture. But going down to your local Starbucks and snapping pics of random kids? There’s no world in which that isn’t creepy.

    And no, it wouldn’t matter if it was a woman doing it. Plenty of nutjobs exist in both genders. What do the photographers think they’re going to do with these pics? You’re not going to win any awards from pics of random kids standing in a Starbucks. If it’s just for practice, then go to a park, ask permission first, EXPLAIN what you’re doing so no one has to wonder, and offer to email copies to the parents.

    I hate it when photographers basically just bray, “It’s my rights, it’s my rights,” and ignore basic decency and act totally offended and entitled when anyone raises any issues. If anyone took pics of my kids in public and never bothered to ask or mention it to me, there’s going to be issues. Cops will be called if they don’t stop. I don’t care if they’re just a photographer, I don’t want pics of my kids to end up as stock photos on shitty content mill articles about bed-wetting and anti-vaccines and shite.

    • wayward

      “I don’t want pics of my kids to end up as stock photos on shitty content mill articles about bed-wetting and anti-vaccines and shite.”

      Guess what, the law doesn’t allow it either without your written consent…so yeah, you can stop with the hyperbole..

      “What do the photographers think they’re going to do with these pics?”

      What do YOU think they are going to do with these pics..?, by that comment you seem to lump all photographers into the “must be a pedophile” group, since apparently only those kind of photographers would do that right…?

      “But going down to your local Starbucks and snapping pics of random kids? There’s no world in which that isn’t creepy.”

      “If anyone took pics of my kids in public and never bothered to ask or mention it to me, there’s going to be issues”

      Ive read to many stories of folks doing exactly that when the photographer was taking pictures of their OWN kids in the park…why…lets see, maybe a automatic “must be a pedophile”…they didn’t bother to actually ask first, they just jumped to a conclusion and acted on it…

    • You have issues…

    • Whatdoyknow

      I believe you are a bit over the top, but everybody his own hobbyhorse! Try to find some peaceful balance.

    • ba78O{}

      They don’t need permission to photograph your child in public as per the photography law. Children are not protected under this law while in public. Except in some countries which expressly forbid photographing children in public. In Canada, it’s legal though.

      When in doubt, assume the person has good intentions. Otherwise you’re just opening a can of worms.

  • Sam

    I would also suggest (where appropriate) ask the kid.

  • Whatdoyknow

    I have done the asking thing as it is the right thing to do. However it spoils the moment completely because sometimes it happens so quickly and as soon as they know you are photographing them they HAVE to pose, which complete spoils the spontaneity of the expressions or behavior. Its very frustrating, So I have sneaked photos of kids doing the cutest things and expressions. Then ask afterwards and explain the “process”. Show the parent the photos and if they are not happy then delete it before their eyes. 99% of the time ask for a copy!! Just be honest and engage like you do with your models.

  • ba78O{}

    I’m a transit enthusiast and I took a photo of a bus terminal. At the last second before the picture was taken, a child stepped into view. Someone saw it and reported me to the police. Instead of politely asking me what my intentions were, they reacted like an animal and called the police and put my face on the news. I was shocked how my identity was defamed like that. People need to realize that the subject of the photo isn’t a child (which took up a very small part of the overall shot), but rather the bus terminal behind them. It is all in the framing and the subject of the photo usually takes up the most space.

  • moshogg

    “I hate it when photographers basically just bray, “It’s my rights, it’s my rights,” and ignore basic decency and act totally offended and entitled when anyone raises any issues.”

    No, the people who are entitled are the ones who think even though the law permits something, they think it should be disallowed because of morals, social etiquette, etc. Nothing is above the law…NOTHING. If you think your social morals, etiquette, etc trump the law, then you are entitled as fuck.

    You know what, when you walk down a street or in public, you are being filmed by someone else’s CCTV camera. Now the person operating that camera doesn’t need your permission to film you, because you are in public. You didn’t explicitly give them permission to film you, and they didn’t explicitly ask for your permission, because they don’t need it. Same goes for the photographer.

    If you are in public, anyone can film or take pictures of you without your consent. See, this is how they are allowed to install hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras in your city in public places or privately owned businesses, because it’s completely legal.

    Now some people think they are entitled to privacy at all times, even when walking down the street. Which means, they expect not to be filmed or recorded on someone else’s recording device without their consent. However, this is just pure entitlement or ignorance of the law. The only legal places you are exempt from filming would be in a bathroom, bedroom, change room, or in your privately owned house.

    So if you don’t want to be filmed, stay inside and lock your doors. But, be warned, the second you step outside, you will be filmed, whether you like it or not.

Recent Posts