| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/12/2011 10:07:30 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 10:13:01 AM · #2 |
If you don't hear from me, I must be in jail from taking some random kids picture. NJ sucks in so many ways, this will be one more if it makes it through. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 10:27:32 AM · #3 |
I thought this was a rule for all states!
That should not be problem if you're taking photo in a bazaar, aiming for a fruit stand, and some kid or kids wonder around with their parents and you capture them. However, if you're in a park, and you don't have a clear subject (not counting models and all that, which you probably would be careful not to have unwanted subjects in your frame) that could be a problem. Parents these days are very uncomfortable with people with cameras, specially places they think they should be relaxed, out of sight.
I am from NJ, moved to AZ a few years ago. When I went to park with my camera there, I was extremely careful. I handed out my cards many times with my name and phone to make parents comfortable even if I am taking my son's pictures only. I still continue same procedure here in AZ
So, even thought it seems like kind of a paranoia, I can understand the parents point of view. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 10:28:37 AM · #4 |
Yeah saw that wtf.... It's ok as long as they ban all cell phone & p&s as well... nah didn't think so.....
I am in NJ a lot recently and the only thing I have found worth pointing a camera at is over the harbour to NYC..... Don't think it matters much really :-) |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 11:01:16 AM · #5 |
NJ is not the only place where idiots have enough time to come up with brillant ideas...
Over here in France (actually I'm not sure if it has ever been voted) a deputy wanted to impose a warning on photo-manipulated pictures. Main goal was to protect young girls against the image of thin top models in magazines.
Spork99... I loved your simple and extremely sharp comment: Fear The Idiots. They are allover the places and make good money :-) |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 11:01:29 AM · #6 |
Well I guess I would be in trouble for this shot. 
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 11:27:05 AM · #7 |
Hmmm... did you read what prompted this, however?
A 63 year old man taking pictures of little girls at the swimming pool because he thought the 8-10 year olds were sexy.
A very creepy line was crossed here. And though I think that it should be legal to take pictures in public places, regardless of who's in them. I also think that what he was doing, and the reason he was doing it, shouldn't be legal.
It's really creepy...
Though I guess there's no way of stopping it short of that law. And I think it that goes way too far.
But it's still really creepy...
Message edited by author 2011-05-12 15:27:59. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 11:39:22 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 11:40:14 AM · #9 |
.
Message edited by author 2011-05-12 18:13:16. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 11:48:58 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Hmmm... did you read what prompted this, however?
A 63 year old man taking pictures of little girls at the swimming pool because he thought the 8-10 year olds were sexy.
A very creepy line was crossed here. And though I think that it should be legal to take pictures in public places, regardless of who's in them. I also think that what he was doing, and the reason he was doing it, shouldn't be legal.
It's really creepy...
Though I guess there's no way of stopping it short of that law. And I think it that goes way too far.
But it's still really creepy... |
Creepy? Yep, sure is. Illegal? Nope. And fopr good reason. This is a free country and people are free to be creepy. Wars have been fought and many have died to give people the freedom to be creepy.
It goes back to "expectation of privacy". When you are in public, you (and your kids) have no expectation of privacy.
And before someone brings it up, commercial usage (the kind of thing you get a model release for) is a different ball of wax. You do have control over the use of your likeness for commercial purposes because it implies endorsement.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 12:45:15 PM · #11 |
| The link in the article where it mentions the ACLU says even the sponsor admits it will need amending to pass constitutional muster. I think the bill is DOA and is just some politician trying to look like they are doing something when they know full well it won't get anywhere. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 12:50:38 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The link in the article where it mentions the ACLU says even the sponsor admits it will need amending to pass constitutional muster. I think the bill is DOA and is just some politician trying to look like they are doing something when they know full well it won't get anywhere. |
Agreed. Though I don't see how it could possibly be amended to make the law constitutional. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 12:53:29 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Though I guess there's no way of stopping it short of that law. |
The creep was arrested on trespassing and disorderly conduct. Under current New Jersey law a trespassing charge is serious and can expose you to a multitude of penalties including fines, probation, community service, and up to 18 months in jail. Disorderly is about the same. So because all we can do is put his creepy butt in jail for around three years, we need to write a new law?
If he had been rubbing himself with his hands in his pockets instead of taking videos, would we pass a law to make it illegal to put your hands in your pocket in public? The existing laws got this guy arrested, why do we need new ones?
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 01:47:18 PM · #14 |
| one of the things i love about this site is how any thread can be a reason for someone to get their shot(s) into the discussion.....we are a funny bunch |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 01:50:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
A 63 year old man taking pictures of little girls at the swimming pool because he thought the 8-10 year olds were sexy.
|
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If he had been rubbing himself with his hands in his pockets instead of taking videos, would we pass a law to make it illegal to put your hands in your pocket in public? The existing laws got this guy arrested, why do we need new ones? |
I'm pretty sure we also need a law against being a 63 year old male... ;-)
Message edited by author 2011-05-12 17:50:56. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 02:12:50 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
one of the things i love about this site is how any thread can be a reason for someone to get their shot(s) into the discussion.....we are a funny bunch |
Touché |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 02:21:11 PM · #17 |
DNMC
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
Well I guess I would be in trouble for this shot. |
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 02:44:36 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 02:47:40 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
A 63 year old man taking pictures of little girls at the swimming pool because he thought the 8-10 year olds were sexy.
|
I take a lot of self-portraits cuz I think I'm sexy, I mean, no one else is going to.
But still, it's really creepy. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 03:19:23 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by vawendy:
A 63 year old man taking pictures of little girls at the swimming pool because he thought the 8-10 year olds were sexy.
|
I take a lot of self-portraits cuz I think I'm sexy, I mean, no one else is going to.
But still, it's really creepy. |
haha! |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 03:20:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Though I guess there's no way of stopping it short of that law. |
The creep was arrested on trespassing and disorderly conduct. Under current New Jersey law a trespassing charge is serious and can expose you to a multitude of penalties including fines, probation, community service, and up to 18 months in jail. Disorderly is about the same. So because all we can do is put his creepy butt in jail for around three years, we need to write a new law?
If he had been rubbing himself with his hands in his pockets instead of taking videos, would we pass a law to make it illegal to put your hands in your pocket in public? The existing laws got this guy arrested, why do we need new ones? |
yup. In that case. But I was just thinking that if it was a 63 year old man in our neighborhood, doing it at our pool, he wouldn't be trespassing, and I don't know that they could get him on disorderly conduct. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 03:41:29 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Though I guess there's no way of stopping it short of that law. |
The creep was arrested on trespassing and disorderly conduct. Under current New Jersey law a trespassing charge is serious and can expose you to a multitude of penalties including fines, probation, community service, and up to 18 months in jail. Disorderly is about the same. So because all we can do is put his creepy butt in jail for around three years, we need to write a new law?
If he had been rubbing himself with his hands in his pockets instead of taking videos, would we pass a law to make it illegal to put your hands in your pocket in public? The existing laws got this guy arrested, why do we need new ones? |
yup. In that case. But I was just thinking that if it was a 63 year old man in our neighborhood, doing it at our pool, he wouldn't be trespassing, and I don't know that they could get him on disorderly conduct. |
The way you need to look at it is this... You cannot stop they way someone who is perverted thinks. He can look at a child fully clothed (and these kids he photographed were from what I read), and see what he wants to see. Taking a picture in no way, shape or form changes the fact that they're fully clothed. What he thinks in his mind can't be changed by you or anyone else. What if his excuse was his only granddaughter had been killed in an accident and he just missed looking at pictures of kids? Would it change your opinion of him? Would these people still be up in arms? Would he have been charged with anything? It's a picture. It can't steal your soul. What someone does with a picture doesn't physically effect the person the picture is of. It's all so bizarre the way people think sometimes. |
|
|
|
05/13/2011 02:18:21 AM · #23 |
as usual a knee jerk reaction from an isolated event.
Yeah, lets keep giving up our rights and freedoms for a little bit of security in our lives.
Message edited by author 2011-05-13 06:24:23. |
|
|
|
05/13/2011 02:30:50 AM · #24 |
I plan to ask Canon to bring in a 'Kid Recognition' camera, one that will delete any evidence of any kid ever appearing in an image. That would be a fixed setting. Come to think of it, just maybe I should request 'Public Places' and 'Bridge' recognition too. I fear my camera... I am convinced now that it is going to turn me into a criminal.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2011 02:39:43 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
I plan to ask Canon to bring in a 'Kid Recognition' camera, one that will delete any evidence of any kid ever appearing in an image. That would be a fixed setting. Come to think of it, just maybe I should request 'Public Places' and 'Bridge' recognition too. I fear my camera... I am convinced now that it is going to turn me into a criminal. |
A partnership with Adobe to incorporate "content-aware" fill feature, along with some facial recognition software would do the trick. Essentially a "No People" mode!
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 11:59:33 AM EDT.
