Taking pictures of bad kids

[cyberspook]

What is the name of your state? NY

OK here we go

I am taking a job this summer as a park supervisor in a very urban area. We get a lot of street kids who cause a lot of problems.

A lot of my employees have cell phones that can take pictures and video. I would like to utilize them to capture photo of these kids when they are acting up and post them on a "wall of shame" so we can recognize them when they come back in.

My question is: What is the legality of this? I know so much is posted on YouTube and what now these days that it is probably very legal to do what I am planning, but I just want to be sure.

Anyway maybe some of you law gurus would like to marinate on this.

Thanks

 

[quincy]

Oooooh. Not wise at all.

I can see several lawsuits with your plan.

Photographing children without parental permission is just a bad idea all the way around.

 

[cyberspook]

Oooooh. Not wise at all.

I can see several lawsuits with your plan.

Photographing children without parental permission is just a bad idea all the way around.

I don't see where it is illegal. The press does it all the time (photographing children without parental permission).

I am not planning on photographing naked kids or making money from there images.

I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am planning on doing something illegal. I know what I am contemplating is a touchy subject. I also want folks to understand we are talking about street thugs that I want to gain some control over, to make this park safer for the community.

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[quincy]

Actually, cyberspook, the press does not take pictures of children "all the time" or, for that matter, even routinely - not without parental consent and releases, or not without an extremely good newsworthy reason to do so. In addition, photojournalists' cameras are generally pretty hard to ignore, so surreptitious photos are not taken (with a few, very rare, investigative-type exceptions).

I will give you some reasons why I think your plan is dangerous legally.

First of all, taking photos of people in public places is generally considered legal, and this includes taking pictures of children in public places. The best way to protect oneself from being sued, however, is to obtain permission prior to taking a photo, even when permission is not legally required. For consent to be effective, it must be given by someone capable of giving such consent. When photographing a minor, this means getting permission from the parent.

A person with a camera taking photos of children in a public place is often regarded with suspicion. All it takes is one concerned person to report to the police and the camera could be confiscated. The taking of photos surreptitiously using a cell phone camera is regarded with even more suspicion and, if discovered and reported, the cell phone would most certainly be confiscated.

If any photo taken captures, even in all innocence, a child's "private area", or if any photo taken could be considered "sexually arousing" in any way, shape or form, major legal woes await.

The 2004 Video Voyeurism Act was amended to include public areas, and many states now have electronic voyeurism privacy laws, designed in part to address the increasing problems with "down-blousing" and "up-skirting" occurring with cell phone camera use in public areas. A Predator Alert Act, introduced in Congress in September of last year, has a good chance of being enacted this year - this will require cell phone cameras to sound a tone when a photo is being taken. California has a similar law that will take effect this year, I believe. This is how seriously cell phone camera use is being questioned, especially as it relates to their use in photographing random children.

Now, even if you were to surreptitiously take a photo with your cell phone of a kid doing something "bad" and you were not discovered taking the photo, posting (publishing) this photo on a "wall of shame" opens you up to potential defamation actions. If the photo is of a recognizable subject and displayed in an unfavorable way, or even in an embarrassing way, or if the photo implies something unfavorable, this can be defamatory or at least bring about a defamation action. I hope you realize that many parents WILL sue over something like this, even when these same parents are not concerned about the reason WHY their child's photo was posted in the first place.

In addition, there is a chance that, in addition to defamation, an invasion of privacy false light action could arise from the photo-taking, photo-publishing, should you mistakenly photograph an innocent act and/or innocent child and post it on your "wall of shame".

So, even if your photo taking in itself is legal, and even if your photo-board shows kids whom you can prove are trouble-makers and worthy of a "wall of shame" position, that not only does not prevent a lawsuit, it can very well result in one. And you would find yourself having to defend your actions in court.

I suppose you could inform all park-goers in some way that the entire park is under survellience and that photos may be taken of anyone in the park, but I am not sure the park service will allow for this. And this would not prevent a passer-by from calling the police and saying you were taking photos of children, and it would not eliminate the risk that one photo might be considered improper, or that one photo might be considered defamatory.

Your plan is certainly not one I would risk, cyberspook. If you are having problems with the kids in the park, I suggest you call the police and let them handle the matter. Or contact the park service and have REAL surveillance cameras installed.

 

[cyberspook]

Actually, cyberspook, the press does not take pictures of children "all the time" or, for that matter, even routinely - not without parental consent and releases, or not without an extremely good newsworthy reason to do so. In addition, photojournalists' cameras are generally pretty hard to ignore, so surreptitious photos are not taken (with a few, very rare, investigative-type exceptions).

I will give you some reasons why I think your plan is dangerous legally.

First of all, taking photos of people in public places is generally considered legal, and this includes taking pictures of children in public places. The best way to protect oneself from being sued, however, is to obtain permission prior to taking a photo, even when permission is not legally required. For consent to be effective, it must be given by someone capable of giving such consent. When photographing a minor, this means getting permission from the parent.

A person with a camera taking photos of children in a public place is often regarded with suspicion. All it takes is one concerned person to report to the police and the camera could be confiscated. The taking of photos surreptitiously using a cell phone camera is regarded with even more suspicion and, if discovered and reported, the cell phone would most certainly be confiscated.

If any photo taken captures, even in all innocence, a child's "private area", or if any photo taken could be considered "sexually arousing" in any way, shape or form, major legal woes await.

The 2004 Video Voyeurism Act was amended to include public areas, and many states now have electronic voyeurism privacy laws, designed in part to address the increasing problems with "down-blousing" and "up-skirting" occurring with cell phone camera use in public areas. A Predator Alert Act, introduced in Congress in September of last year, has a good chance of being enacted this year - this will require cell phone cameras to sound a tone when a photo is being taken. California has a similar law that will take effect this year, I believe. This is how seriously cell phone camera use is being questioned, especially as it relates to their use in photographing random children.

Now, even if you were to surreptitiously take a photo with your cell phone of a kid doing something "bad" and you were not discovered taking the photo, posting (publishing) this photo on a "wall of shame" opens you up to potential defamation actions. If the photo is of a recognizable subject and displayed in an unfavorable way, or even in an embarrassing way, or if the photo implies something unfavorable, this can be defamatory or at least bring about a defamation action. I hope you realize that many parents WILL sue over something like this, even when these same parents are not concerned about the reason WHY their child's photo was posted in the first place.

In addition, there is a chance that, in addition to defamation, an invasion of privacy false light action could arise from the photo-taking, photo-publishing, should you mistakenly photograph an innocent act and/or innocent child and post it on your "wall of shame".

So, even if your photo taking in itself is legal, and even if your photo-board shows kids whom you can prove are trouble-makers and worthy of a "wall of shame" position, that not only does not prevent a lawsuit, it can very well result in one. And you would find yourself having to defend your actions in court.

I suppose you could inform all park-goers in some way that the entire park is under survellience and that photos may be taken of anyone in the park, but I am not sure the park service will allow for this. And this would not prevent a passer-by from calling the police and saying you were taking photos of children, and it would not eliminate the risk that one photo might be considered improper, or that one photo might be considered defamatory.

Your plan is certainly not one I would risk, cyberspook. If you are having problems with the kids in the park, I suggest you call the police and let them handle the matter. Or contact the park service and have REAL surveillance cameras installed.

Thank you

 

[quincy]

You're welcome, cyberspook. Good luck this summer! I hope the street thugs are few and far between.

 

[wplck]

It's DEFINITELY legal to take photos of kids doing wrong and then present those photos to the police as evidence of a crime, regardless of their age.
Especially if the children are doing wrong on your property while trespassing. I took some photos of some hooligans in my yard climbing around on our back porch where they shouldn't have been, and could've hurt themselves. The children started yelling at me, "That's illegal!" I told them trespassing is illegal. They never came back in my yard. I asked the authorities, and they said it's not illegal to take photos of them, if they're in my yard trespassing.

It's also legal to take photos of children in a public place, as part of a scene, and post them publicly. (Internet, newspaper, magazine, etc.) For example, if you take a photo of a street, a crowd gathered in a park or at an event, etc, and there are children there, you're not barred from taking photos of a crowd because there's children there.
I have looked into this because I have worked as an event photographer. I believe this law is throughout the U.S.

The only exceptions to this would be where the law prohibits ALL photography in an area. For example, awhile back a city transit system barred photography in the trains. Some stores bar photography on their premises.

I think the legal issue comes in if you post them on the internet with the caption "look at these dirty bad kids" - or include any kind of ethnic slurs or whatnot, then that would definitely be asking for a lawsuit. Obviously, if you take them and use them in some sort of sexual context, you'd be asking for a prison sentence.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I think quincy is way off base here. Last year in California there was a known pedophile taking pictures of children playing at the park and there was nothing that could be done about it. Quincy should support his off the wall posts with actual law.

The 'wall of shame' is a very common tactic used in mall security offices and security departments at stores to keep track of those known to have stolen or caused trouble. For a time I worked as a Pinkerton Agent and we had BOLO boards with names and photos of individuals.

 

[quincy]

Ozark, you are itching for a fight with me and I am not sure why.

First of all, I told cyberspook that it is generally considered legal to take photos of people, including children, in a public place without obtaining permission. In fact, that was in my very first paragraph. But then I listed the possible problems or risks he could face by doing so.

New York has not been kind to photographers, and this has been publicized widely. I believe you are a member of the ACLU, correct? Then you are aware of New York City's proposal, proposed by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting, to make photograhers and filmmakers (and the wording of the proposal would include amateur photographers such as tourists) to obtain permits and liability insurance before being allowed to take photos or films on New York City property - including sidewalks and parks. Although the permits would have been, apparently, free and the applications would be available online, this was seen by most, and fought by both the ACLU and photographers and journalists nationwide, as an intrusion on First Amendment rights. The proposal has been shelved for now.

In New York, photographers, including photojournalists, have reported having cameras and film confiscated, and have reported being harassed for taking what are considered legal photos in a public place. Is it legal to do this? No. But that does not the eliminate the risk of it happening.

You are in Missouri and I have no idea where wplck is located, but for cyberspook I outlined the problems and risks he could face when photographing people, especially children, in New York. For the reasons I outlined for him, I suggested he rethink his plans - to avoid the possible consequences. Legally does he have to? Probably not. But if he is looking to avoid the risks, then his plan is not wise.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

First of all, I told cyberspook that it is generally considered legal to take photos of people, including children, in a public place without obtaining permission. In fact, that was in my very first paragraph. But then I listed the possible problems or risks he could face by doing so.

NO, your very first three paragraphs were

Oooooh. Not wise at all.

I can see several lawsuits with your plan.

Photographing children without parental permission is just a bad idea all the way around.

You give advice that is wrong, so I will call you on it.

 

[quincy]

Ozark, that is NOT what you are doing and you know it. Nowhere in my post - this one or the others you are targeting - is my advice wrong. Cautious, yes. Wrong, no.

You seem to be on some sort of crusade for some strange and unknown reason, and this crusade is about MY posts alone. You are not following anyone else around this forum, being rude and condescending and telling them to cite laws. Most posters do NOT cite laws. YOU certainly don't.

You tell me I am wrong here, but you have NOTHING to back that up with except a personal experience you had with Pinkerton in Missouri - which has NOTHING to do with cyberspook or his question or New York or anything - and an agreement with another poster that, geez, if I can take pictures of hooligans in my backyard (wherever that backyard is - he never posted his state) and get away with it, all photographers can.

I hope you knock this off soon.

 

[fairisfair]

NO, your very first three paragraphs were



You give advice that is wrong, so I will call you on it.

Am I gonna have to call your mom???

what IS your problem???

Quincy is well respected here, posts accurate information, backs it up when questioned, and admits when he doesn't know something.

You need to back the he11 off.

you and I have always been respectful of each other here, and you know that when the circumstances were different I went to bat for you as well.

You are wrong right now. very wrong.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

LOL, I'm glad I am not on the receiving end of all those red faces.

 

[fairisfair]

LOL, I'm glad I am not on the receiving end of all those red faces.

and all of you who know me know that I NEVER use the red face. Hardly.... Ever....

 

[quincy]

I really really appreciate all of the red faces used for my benefit, fairisfair. I am just more puzzled here than angry. Not sure where the hostility is coming from.