Well,

Assuming that the OP just found this forum (which is why it took a couple of months to post), I do think that "we were accused, tried and convicted of pedophilia" is an overreaction.

At least 30 years ago I was told, in no uncertain terms, that it is very, very rude to photograph anyone without permission.

(Which is why I have a telephoto lens. :) )

((I))

I have many pictures I have taken of total strangers over the years because they were interesting to me, including pictures of children. Last week I took pictures of some old men playing boules in a village in France. I took a picture of two women looking out through their window at all the tourists at the market in another village. I also took pictures of children running half naked through a sprinkler in the central place of a French town on a very hot Bastille Day.

I did spend the previous week in London, and I am now glad I didn't take any pictures of children there, at least I think I didn't. I'll find out later when I get my pictures developed.

In any event, I must be naive. I am fully aware that I can't sell pictures of people without a release, but as far as my pictures ever get is an album I force upon unwilling family and friends. It has never occurred to me that this was in any way illegal. In fact, the one photo course I audited in college impressed upon me the usefulness of getting close to one's subject, even for candid shots, and to get over the discomfort created by doing so. I haven't yet succeeded in this last part because I don't do it often enough.

And I had certainly not been aware that you can not photograph your own children in a school play in Britain. This is all food for thought, certainly.

>>>>
accused files a civil rights violation against the City,
>>>>

trafalgar sq is not in the city.

I think the OP post is exhaggereatted, but it's too bad they had an unpleasant experience.

I agree that it's rude, possibly illegal, and one should ask permission first. To do otherwise shows a certain lack of judgement, to be sure.

To think you have special access to images as an artist isn't realistic.

I love to photograph people also, and use the images later in paintings, but I get permission first, as a primary rule.

I was in a public park in NY with my 4 year niece a few weeks ago, and while she was in the playground area with the other kids, a group of three nice looking people came throught the gate with cameras, and starting taking pictures.

These selfstyled "paparazzi" were approached immediately by a group of the mothers, and walked directly to the exit. In 2005, this is the only wise response.

If geowa lived in Manhattan for 35 years as claimed, he/she is surely not at all naive, especially about this issue.

As far as I know, the US law is that while you can photograph anyone/anything that is public (ie., people in the park, a building from the street), in order to sell the photos, you would need a model release. However, didn't the OP say he was an artist?

I use photos I've taken for body studies in my own art, i.e., I take about 10 photos of different men, then when I need a closeup of, say, a man's hand at a certain angle, I draw it from my own photo. This may be what he was collecting photos of several people for -- anatomy studies. Lots of artists do this. Drawing from a photo of someone and selling that drawing isn't a violation of US law, as long as the original photographed person isn't recognizable. So other than the face (and even items like eyes, lips, and other hard-to-draw-from-imagination can be used) there are all sorts of body part info that the photos can provide the life drawer.

I wonder if someone here could advise on just how to take a photograph of Trafalger Sq without people in it?

Do you think I could ask each one of them permission before they wandered off, or would it be better to hire a team to cover more ground.

Ever wonder exactly who they've hired to watch all those cameras already mounted all around London? All sterling, I'm sure.

Geowa, this sort of thing has been happening in several other countries too. Canada and the US at least. I know someone who went through the same for taking photos at his nephews ball game. I'm afraid it's just part of the ultra-paranoid times we live in. I'm fairly sure the long history of street photography is reaching an end.

lol ira, I just saw your last line. :D

Me too.

Some of the above posts are taking the OP as the full story. And that may be the case. But being fairly cynical, and certainly reading between the lines - I don't think that's what happened.

Sure - just about any photo of Trafalgar Square will be full of people - hard to avoid. But geowa only mentioned taking shots of people, not of the Nat'l gallery or St Martins or anything else but just 100 shots of people -- "Photos of adults, children, men, women, gays and straights"

Sure - that could be totally innocent and possibly was. But two older men (again just reading between the lines) wandering around the square for an hour+ taking photos of children could easily raise suspicion. And he says he is an artist - it could also have been that he was taking unusual perspectives like laying/sitting down and shooting up at people.

And living in NY and HI, he is definitely aware of the way things are nowadays.

If things happened just as he says - then he would have been sure to go to the police station to get the transcript and possibly complain. But instead, he cancelled an appt w/ a gallery or agent about a London showing and left the country.

Absolutely, all could have been exactly as stated - but there really are two sides to most stories and I think some important details were probably left out . . . . .

There are always two sides to a story, but your post implies like the others, that there is some sort of a violation of a criminal statute if the OP is taking pictures of children on public streets-I don't know what criminal violation that would be -as there must be a "mens rea" in any such criminal law, and taking photographs of people on public streets doesn't qualify-period.

And as far as not going down to the police station to pick up the transcript, I hardly think you or anyone else subjected to such a frightening incident at the hands of foreign police in a foreign country would be inclined to go down to the police station and pursue the matter further without a solicitor present, thinking very rightly that by drawing further attention to oneself after such an incident with police might well get you arrested -in a foreign country, THAT would be infinitely worse - so the OP leaving the country without following up on the matter is what most reasonable people in his situation would do.

Assuming no law was broken, can someone explain to my how this reaction (including the ball game one) protects children or fights against child pornography? I'm not trying to provoke a flame war, I just really do not understand how.

Agree with you janis-there seem to be lots of gaps in the OP story.

Greendragon
I'm also a figurative painter and read your response with some interest. I know lots of artists who base their work on photographs and pictures that are easy to find in the media, or use photos as a reference. Certainly I do .

But I still wouldn't try to photgraph children without permission, because in today's world, children are at much more risk that they used to be, and yes, there is more (unfortunately, very well-founded) paranoia about their safety.

Clifton and Ira- lol, good luck with those telephoto lenses of yours! Please don't try to lurk around my niece's playground though!

Like everybody else posting messages here, I have no real idea of the circumstances in this case, but does a normal tourist take a hundred pictures of Trafalgar Square?

Well Louie, you put your finger on it- if there is such a criminal violation in England, then it would be very difficult to figure out what the purpose of such a statute was, and in this country at least, it wouldn't fly because a court would throw out such a charge as an illegal 4th amendment search and seizure.

<On a public street, we were accused, tried and convicted of pedophilia.

Surely that is an exxageration.

I think we are getting a one sided report. i find it hard to believe thet the police would react so strongly to an "innocnet" photo taking.

Where you..
photographing the same child
following children
taking mostly children's pics
talking to them
focussing on what part of the body

There are many unanswered questions..

I'm not sure I can add anything to the thread that hasn't been said already. Here in the US, taking photos of people in public might not get you in to trouble, but photographing buildings might. My friends and I have had our disposible cameras confiscated for photographing buildings in a few cities (NY, Denver, Austin and Miami) and have had to erase digital shots.

Spygirl, when did you become an expert on British Law?

There is genuine, heightened concern over the protection of children since numerous, well publicised, cases of child pornography, grooming and stalking, on the increase since the dawn of the internet. Taking photographs of children may appear innocent, but 'could' be the start of a grooming or stalking campaign.

Ask yourself this - if you saw an older man taking photos of YOUR children in a park - wouldn't you have a word with the nearest policeman? I would.

I can remember seeing a little girl on the island of Pescatore. She was about six or seven and busily fishing with a home-made rod and line. A large tabby cat was sitting bolt upright by her side waiting for her to catch something.
It would have made a lovely photo, but she didn't seem to have any parents around. I went without my picture because I would never photograph a child without permission. I would certainly never photograph an adult unless they were a street performer.

Unless something has changed dramatically this year, it's perfectly legal to photograph people in public places in the UK, and in France, and in many other countries (including the US). This is true irrespective of their age.

In some jurisdictions, you need a model release before you can <i>publish</i> someone's photograph (either generally or only for certain uses), but just taking the photo in public is legal.

The fact that police might object to this does not mean that they are right; the police, like anyone else, sometimes overreact out of hysteria or paranoia. Sometimes they have to be informed of what the law actually says.

If this sort of photography is now illegal in the UK, I'd appreciate it if someone can point me to the relevant legislation.

Quite frankly, I'm disturbed by the reation of the board to this post. The Nazi tactics described by the poster are frightening and the blase reactions of others makes me cringe. Poster &quot;Tallulah&quot; has no problem with the police tactics as described because according to her anything to protect children from even the vaguest possibility of a future crime should be attempted. Really? Anything? I'm an adult in my thirties and while I would never get in peoples' faces to take a photo, it would not occurr to me to get a release from every single person that might appear in my pictures taken at Hyde Park or Picadilly Circus. &quot;Geowa&quot; presents a scenario that is frightening and all who believe in the rule of law and the right to be treated with dignity should be outraged by such in incident. I'll be in London this year (without my stupid camera!) but it is not the London I read about and fell in love with through literature, movies, and history books.

Uh, Kate, I think you're a little confused.

You see, I DIDN'T say I was an expert on British law, (which is not the same as saying I don't know British law at all) however, I DO know American law, and I know that taking such photographs in the US is not at all a criminal offence. In THIS country, such actions as allegedly experienced by the OP would be an illegal search and seizure, and the City would be civilly liable in a section 1983 action.

And if it IS a criminal violation in Britain (which apparently, you're not able to say one way or the other) then I'd sure like to know what the basis for the criminal statute is-because it has to comport with European Human Rights law, and if the alleged actions suffered by the OP are true, such actions clearly WOULD be a violation of YOUR LAW.