Tracym

Actually I have. Phoned, threatened. Even came to beat upon my door at 3 a.m.

Have you?

RoadWarriorFromLP

Threats obviously go over the line, and he wouldn't have consent to enter your private property.

Here, we are talking about public space. Based upon your position, I suppose that you wouldn't object to him keeping his distance with a camera, documenting your every move. Because according to you, that appears to be perfectly legitimate behavior, not subject to limitation if it isn't the government who is doing it.

fatbrit

Your approach seems to suggest that all photography outside one's property should require explicit permission -- that's an absolute stand in my book.

Tracym

I wouldn't like it - but up to a point I suspect it is legal. That's what happens to celebrities.

I don't think there are any laws against it, although perhaps consistantly filming one person, perhaps one could go to court and get a restraining order. Although, celebrities have to put up with it.

pejpm1

I'm sure your parents said the same thing about your generation. Thats what happens when you get older. Did crime not exist when you were younger?

MsElui

i have kids - 2 boys and a girl on the way.

If i put my kid in undies or a costume and took them to a public place then i wouldnt lose sleep over someone photographing or videoing them. If that person tried to touch, coerce or threaten my kids i'd tear their head off.

Looking at innocent photos of my kids playing doesnt hurt my kids or me. Heck i even have pictures of my kids in the bath on public sites (kids sites that protect photos so they cant be easily copied). If it gives some creep his jollies looking then pity him - it wont hurt my kids or me.

LadyBelle

Entertainment Law -- you can look it up there if you really care to see where the line is drawn for photographing/filming celebrities in public differs for celebrities vs. non-celebs. There is a difference as even the courts concur and thus there really isn't any reason to be comparing a celebrity's treatment from photographers with the average joe's treatment from photogs with regard to the discussion of freedom to photograph.

Speaking of 'threat', there is a perceived threat when some stranger is taking a video of your child (or even you, if you feel so), particularly as the main subject and particularly for a longer period of time than could justified as just 'happened to' capture the kid in his camera lens as he was filming all around his general surroundings (even though in the case of the OP, the man explicitly said he was videotaping the kid on purpose). The law hasn't caught up with internet capabilities; there is a perceived threat that that low-res film can be distribute via the internet, mocked up (or not) with dialogue, other photos cropped in, details on where she was and what he'd like to do with her, etc. and whatever. Whatever the case may be, there is a perceived threat there. Does that perceived threat mean that all photography in the area should be forbidden? Does it mean he's a danger or doing something illegal? No, but it is a strange behavior --- we spend a lot of time around kids in public parks we don't see many strangers focusing their cameras on someone else's kids for an extended period of time. Add to it his defensive and 'well-researched' response, and it should be reported just in CASE he actually has a record of doing this before where he has gone on to do something illegal with the footage --- or perhaps even targetting or following --- even possibly eventually harming --- the children he's filmed; authorities will have a record of any such conviction and the current and repeat evidence could help in preventing other people from becoming an object of his sickness. Of course he could be fine and himself 'embody innocence'. If that's the case, then no harm done...to him or the kid.

Lord Lionheart

Personally I think the people that seem to have so much of an issue with this loquacious thread should look deep inside themselves. Maybe there is some projecting going on. Some of the comments here remind me of the Sean Connery movie 'The Offence'. Perhaps many people have issues themselves as they are dwelling on this incident which was really a complete non-issue.

One Hung Lo

Great movie! Filmed in Bracknell, where I got his autograph.

And I think you make a great point LL.

AmerLisa

I think you're a bit cracked.....

Lord Lionheart

Really, how so? I think the people that have gone into paranoid depth on this thread and have propelled it towards 300 posts are more cracked. But that's just me.

A few days ago I was driving around in an area near I live where there is a one way street. There is a car dealership there and people frequently cut up the one way street going the wrong way to save themselves going around the block. This happened again a few days ago except I had my son in the car when I made a right on the street to find a car facing me, going the wrong way. The stupid bitch put her hands out palms up saying "What do you want me to do?"
Then she back up over the kerb before turning around and then giving me the finger as she pased while I parked.
My point, this idiot going the wrong way up a one way street in a 2 ton SUV posed a more immediate threat to my son than the contents of this thread.
Not only that but she had the cheek to give me the finger. I felt like driving after her, pulling her out of the car and giving her a kicking. But I didn't, on reflection I probably should have taken her plate and reported her for dangerous driving :curse:

Tracym

I believe stalking laws mention something to the effect of a 'realistic' threat - not just a perceived one.

I think it's a bit unusual of the man - but I certainly wouldn't hold him having researched his rights against him, especially if he actually is in multimedia. Heck, I was interested in researching photography rights, after a store told me I couldn't photo a person in front of the store. And I have no desire to do anything pervy with photos. Nothing wrong in my opinion with someone knowing what the law is - so they can both retain the rights they have, and stay within the law and not do something illegal.

I don't have a big problem with someone telling the police - just that, as I said before, they'd be more obligated to protect his rights than anything else. If he's a known pedo - then yep, I'd imagine he'd be in trouble.

AmerLisa

I don't think they've went on "paranoid depth" on this thread. The fact that its went on this long may be a bit OTT, but I guess if you've got the time.....

I made my point many pages ago about this topic. I still feel that if someone was photographing my child, they better have a good reason. Whether you're protecting your child from a 2 ton SUV or some perv, it all goes down to doing what's right by your child. In my opinion, of course.

RoadWarriorFromLP

I'm not sure how it suggests that when I have explicitly stated otherwise.

There you go -- there are certain actions that are legal, and others there are not. The law is not absolute now, and it doesn't have to be in the future.

As both Lady Belle and I noted above, the law treats public figures differently from private ones.

These distinctions that you claim do not exist actually do exist. Libel and slander laws are specifically different, with greater protection accorded to the private figure.

The law understands that those who choose to be in the public eye are subject to more press and public scrutiny, and are therefore supposed to tolerate more intrusion than the private citizen. Laws that account for context and intent are not at all unusual, including in this area. The issue is where to exactly draw the line, not one of whether a line shouldn't be drawn at all.

scrubbedexpat097

........and that's what it all boils down too really. Protecting your own and making sure you are doing what you personally feel is the the right thing for your own kids and if by doing that you are protecting other kids then all the better.