I am a photographer - NOT a paedophile

[William W]

I am a photographer - NOT a paedophile

Your profile states you’re located in NSW.

I suggest that you attain a “Working with Children Check” reference number from the NSW Government’s Office of the Children’s Guardian.

I understand that document is recognized interstate, throughout AUS. I have found it a very useful document overseas, too.

That’s what I would give to the Security Guards, not necessarily a business card.

It was your choice to pack up your gear and move on, based solely upon the Security Guard's report "3 parents had complained about me taking pictures": prima facie that probably wouldn’t have been my choice.

*


Four Girls - Greenhills Beach, AUS 2007

I sent a digital copy to one of the girls and got a reply that they all loved it.

*


Little Girl and her Dog - Venice 2012

Mum and Dad were inside the house when this was made. I called them out to show them the photo; made a few more of the whole family. Sent them a few of the files and got a nice 'thank you' note.

***

Notwithstanding my absolute agreement with the opinions contained within Rick’s commentary, specifically and definitively the need for street photographers to be good communicators:

it is also my opinion that a default buckling under to irrational societal pressure, is definitely not the best course of action and doing so will lead to a poorer society.

WW

[Mark L]

I agree with what William says. Especially his last sentence.

WWCCheck is $80 and lasts for 5 years. It is a very easy process these days.
I had to renew mine for H.S.C. supervision work this year and was a bit surprised at how the whole thing has been streamlined. All done within 24 hours.

[markdphotography]

Your profile states you’re located in NSW.

I suggest that you attain a “Working with Children Check” reference number from the NSW Government’s Office of the Children’s Guardian.

I understand that document is recognized interstate, throughout AUS. I have found it a very useful document overseas, too.

That’s what I would give to the Security Guards, not necessarily a business card.

It was your choice to pack up your gear and move on, based solely upon the Security Guard's report "3 parents had complained about me taking pictures": prima facie that probably wouldn’t have been my choice.

https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18420327-orig.jpg
Little Girl and her Dog - Venice 2012

Mum and Dad were inside the house when this was made. I called them out to show them the photo; made a few more of the whole family. Sent them a few of the files and got a nice 'thank you' note.

***

Notwithstanding my absolute agreement with the opinions contained within Rick’s commentary, specifically and definitively the need for street photographers to be good communicators:

it is also my opinion that a default buckling under to irrational societal pressure, is definitely not the best course of action and doing so will lead to a poorer society.

WW

I did a similar thing when I was in Africa in 2006. Took the details of quite a few of the locals on the street and sent them photos when I got home. Cost me about $100 from memory and only wish I could have been there when they opened the envelope. Seems like the fear of photographers is more of a first world problem although it was many years ago when I was in Africa.

Thanks for the heads up about the Working With Children Check.

I have also set a goal to improve my street photography skills and started website streetmeet.com.au and will get some cards printed to give to people I photograph. Will be a good challenge.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with what William says. Especially his last sentence.

WWCCheck is $80 and lasts for 5 years. It is a very easy process these days.
I had to renew mine for H.S.C. supervision work this year and was a bit surprised at how the whole thing has been streamlined. All done within 24 hours.

Yes applied online last night - just need to visit the Service NSW outlet and pay the money plus confirm my ID which I will do tomorrow.

[William W]

I think it good that you moved on the WWC.

. . . Seems like the fear of photographers is more of a first world problem although it was many years ago when I was in Africa.

No. I don't think that's it.

I think it is a more general societal problem predicated on action and then irrational (emotive) reaction. That exists in many societies, not necessarily the more affluent.

(as one example) What I mean is - take a close read of Rick's post #27. It is data based content, from which a logically structured and formulated opinion is concluded.

On the other hand, (typically, but hopefully it will not happen here in this conversation) before I published:

"a default buckling under to irrational societal pressure, is definitely not the best course of action and doing so will lead to a poorer society."

I took about 30 minutes to choose between not replying at all, or simply publishing a reply which advised you to get a WWC.

The point being that, that sentence (above) was constructed very carefully and published as per its literal meaning.

The phrase "irrational societal pressure" means exactly the words as they are written . . . if you will: "societal dictates and rules that rely on bursts and blusters of emotion and then predicated by an illogical progression of thought, rather than an holistic view of data gathering and then predicated on sound sociological theory and practice."

I have had similar conversations before: it is way too easy for some folk to arc up at words such as “irrational” simply because they react emotionally to some words when the use of those words is simply for the articulate precision of their meaning.

***

As this is a WRITTEN forum, there is no option to gain benefit of the nuances of: intonation; timbre; voice; body language; demeanour and posture - the meaning of words and the careful choice of words is all we have to converse.

In the real world of 'street photography', we have many many more communications tools at our disposal.

Taking your Opening Post, deconstructing it and then playing through one only alternative scenario:

Firstly: it was only hearsay that three parents “complained”. The truth could range from no one made any comment to the Security Guards – one or a few parents asked the Security Guards if they knew the purpose of your photos – three parents were on the phone to the police and the Security Guards said that they would put a stop to the behaviour etc.

Secondly: if there was indeed a “complaint” what specifically was that complaint?

Thirdly: in the absence of a “complaint” (and even if there was a “complaint”) on what authority did the security guards ask you to stop the action of making photos?

Again - asking questions, is simply asking questions: but some people may react emotionally to being asked questions – that’s where the skill of good communication is necessary – and that skill combines the spoken questions and the nuances of: demeanour; posture; body language; timbre, tone and voice.

On the other side of the coin, simply packing up and moving on provides both credence and credibility to the “complaint” (if there was one) WITHOUT even addressing the complaint and its validity.

Thus most likely, simply moving on, will reinforce the parents’ view that you were indeed up to no good and moreover make them feel good that they protected their children from you.

It occurs to me that you then went away feeling upset or angry or a bit of both and subsequently felt the need to vent here on this forum to get rid of some of those feelings.

(probably more important to a (not) well functioning society): simply moving on when asked, most likely reinforced the Security Guards’ (probably subconscious) feeling that they did good . . .
BUT – moreover, reinforced their belief that they have the right to dictate a move on order, which is predicated solely on their opinion or whim and not on: law; logic or social mores.

For clarity, I am not “having a go” at you – but rather taking the scenario that you outlined and processing it through one other possible outcome and explaining part of the rationale for that.

For further clarity, I believe that I absolutely understand the reasons why you chose to react the way you did and pack up when the Security Guards asked you to: perhaps after this conversation, next time you might react differently in a similar situation.

Good luck with you Street Photography ambitions.

WW

- - - Updated - - -

*********************************************************************************

. . . Mind you this is the same rule that does not allow parents to take images of their kids at surf and swimming carnivals which is also a crazy rule. . . .

Missed that sentence the first time I read through the thread -

What "rule" is this?
And who made it?


*

I recall that Randwick Municipal Council tried this on by passing a by-law circa. 2005 pursuant to the swimming enclosures under their aegis.

I recall that it lasted about 48 hours before being rescinded. Funny that at the the School Swimming carnival held that very next day there was a group of four dads carrying cameras and video gear to capture their kids at the school swimming carnival – three of these dads were QCs and the forth an experienced journalist; also serendipitous that two TV NEWS crews arrived to film the Security Guards escorting these four blokes out of the swimming pool area.

Later, after the By-law was repealed, several high profile people were quite vocal on this topic - amongst those people were Ian Thorpe and Dawn Fraser.

WW

[KevPride]

Just a sober note, a WWC (working with children clearance) is only a document to state you have not been charged with an offence, not that you are not/ have not committed offences.

Plenty of recent cases of Child Service workers in the Welfare industry actually convicted of paedophile offences, they had clearances.

I think you have to be self aware particularly where you use you camera, if in doubt put it away.

In this day and age people have a right to be concerned at others activities around them.

[markdphotography]

Just a sober note, a WWC (working with children clearance) is only a document to state you have not been charged with an offence, not that you are not/ have not committed offences.

Valid point Kevin but it is better than no document but still not a silver bullet. Mind you I have not used it since I got it a few weeks ago. It is a letter rather than a card tht I will just keep in my camera bag.

Plenty of recent cases of Child Service workers in the Welfare industry actually convicted of paedophile offences, they had clearances.

I agree and there is probably facts to support this.

I think you have to be self aware particularly where you use you camera, if in doubt put it away.

I guess that is the point of the post. Just have a look around and you will see people with camera phones everywhere but use the Real McOy instead of a toy and everyone looks at you. Perhaps "if in doubt, be cautious"

In this day and age people have a right to be concerned at others activities around them.

The issue is that this fear of the camera has dragged on and not many seem to be standing up for it. While I don't expect itto become a plebiscite, more togs need to be talking about this subject and that is the only way we will change perception. Some people spedd, some take drugs, some rob people but everyone is not BAD. What happened to the premise of innocent till proven guilty. I reckon criminals have more rights that photographers.

On saying that all valid points Kevin that I respect so thank you for contributing.

[Steve Axford]

Problem is, Mark, that society is currently changing from an attitude of denial when it comes to paedophilia (and sexual harassment, family violence, etc), to an attitude of awareness and non-acceptance. During that change there is inevitably a degree of over reaction. Given that there are still sections of society who would prefer to deny that there is a problem, it is not surprising that other sections can overreact at times. I think we have to be very careful with what we do as photographers and always be aware of how our actions may be interpreted. That's why I generally photograph mushrooms

[markdphotography]

Problem is, Mark, that society is currently changing from an attitude of denial when it comes to paedophilia (and sexual harassment, family violence, etc), to an attitude of awareness and non-acceptance. During that change there is inevitably a degree of over reaction. Given that there are still sections of society who would prefer to deny that there is a problem, it is not surprising that other sections can overreact at times. I think we have to be very careful with what we do as photographers and always be aware of how our actions may be interpreted. That's why I generally photograph mushrooms

I always try to be mindful of what I do and don't mind being asked or questioned. I am reminded of the quote "The meek will inherit the earth" - nothing could be further from the truth, the meek continue to be bullied by the loud and outspoken. This is not the first instance and it has been happening for over 10 years without any response - this time my meek decided to speek up. Somewhere between apathy and over reacting is a common sense approach.

Thanks for contributing Steve - all thoughts are appreciated.

The fungi will be enjoying the rain we are getting - left the roof off the Fungi Motel this morning when I left for work.

Cheers Mark

[Steve Axford]

Ah, but if we had a common sense society then we never would have had the problem to start with. What sane person could think that paedophilia was a good thing, or at least only a minor transgression? Yet, apparently many in the Catholic Church hierarchy thought that the good name of the church was vastly more important than any lives they destroyed along the way. Some apparently still think that way, and it isn't just the Catholic Church. There is a battle going on to try to change society's attitudes to this and unfortunately some innocent photographers can get caught in the crossfire. I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that I think it is inevitable given that we do not have a rational society.

The fungi will love the weather this next week.

[mikew09]

I havent read all in detail but the title says enough. It always sits in the back of my mind when I am taking a photo of kids to ensure there is nothing in the shot that can be misinterpreted as there is a most incorrect association that has started up over the last few yrs. Its dumb but it has been embedded in the mind of people these days.

When my job allowed me time to go out and enjoy taking some photos in my lunch break, some time ago now :-( I used to like taking photos of the old churches etc around the city. About 5 yrs back I was setting up in a grass area to take some HDR shots of this beautiful church. There was some people sitting on the lawn just in the frame of view (off which I would clone out later) and I thought it obvious I was not taking a photo of them that got a bit upset.

There was one bloke maybe 20+ and three lady's of the same age I assume siting far right of frame. The guy came over to me and very abruptly asked me why I was taking photos of the girls and him. "I'm not" I replied. He started getting more aggressive and I offered to show the photos on my camera so he could see obviously not what he claimed - they were even far enough to the edge of frame to be distorted. He offered up a few more choice words of what he thought I was of which I did take offence too and said "Listen, how bout I just delete all the photos and move to another angle. That seemed to defuse the situ - I was starting to wonder if he wasnt about to grab my camera and do the go ballistic thing.

Now, this guy and the girls were not park dwellers, drunk or whatever. Well dressed in business attire and obviously just having lunch outside the office - this brush we are now tarred with is accountable for some really dumb attitudes by people and has the effect of them not seeing common sense.

Honestly - people seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack.

[markdphotography]

Honestly - people seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack.

[nardes]

I can mostly live with folks “jumping to the wrong conclusion” in their often incorrect (even poor) assessment of a situation, usually spawning a self-righteous rant that their perceived rights are somehow being trampled.

What disappoints me is the lack of self-awareness to admit they have made an incorrect judgement when the whole picture is explained to them, to allay their fears. It seems that few people have the humility and confidence to admit they may have got the wrong end of the stick and then offer an apology. The weapons of choice appear to be aggression and confrontation rather than understanding, situational reviews, etc.

What ever happened to respect, diplomacy, considering the other party, etc.

It really is okay to be wrong and to admit it – life will carry on, usually for the better.

Cheers

Dennis

[Mark L]

Plenty of recent cases of Child Service workers in the Welfare industry actually convicted of paedophile offences, they had clearances.

Please post these recent cases of these clearances and convictions.
Suspect their clearances was not so after conviction.
I am doing H.S.C work again later this month and my https://www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/...children-check simply wouldn't work with the slightest suspicion of wrong doing these days.
Some things have changed.

[KevPride]

Mark attached is a link to an article on this, SA had a Royal Commission into our State Child Welfare Dept after a series of employees charged and convicted of engaging in Child Porn/ Rape etc. Certainly hope things have now changed, my original comment was to show a Clearance is really only as good as the information they have available and really only proof of no convictions etc.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...4dc0439b8f3f8b

regards
Kevin

[William W]

. . . Honestly - people seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack.

IMO, better:

"Honestly - there are some people who seem to just look for an excuse these days to have a angry attack."

IMO the words are important. As Steve mentioned, during stages of societal change and becoming awareness, there will certainly be extreme views, in this case it is even more important to convey one's viewpoint accurately.

WW

[achee]

It's a shame many (most?) people in our society are suspicious of strangers' intentions and are ready to jump to conclusions or 'have an angry attack,' but that's the society we have. It's generally not normal to approach strangers in public places and socially interact with them, as it might be in other (notably third world) countries.

I'd occasionally find myself shooting in populated public places, and although I know I'm perfectly within my legal rights to photograph strangers including children, I'd usually try to avoid singling out individuals or small groups to photograph. Also, I'd try to avoid appearing to do that. Why? Hardly from a fear of being called a paedophile, but mostly because it would feel rude. I feel like pointing a camera at a stranger is a bit like staring at them - if a stranger pointed a camera at me or my kids I'd feel like that isn't socially appropriate.

Actually, I reckon I'd be more accepting of a stranger pointing a DSLR at my kids than a phone camera. A DSLR suggests they are trying to create art, which I'm more likely to be fine with. A phone camera suggests they are trying to document the moment, which would make me question why.

[markdphotography]

I did a similar thing when I was in Africa in 2006. Took the details of quite a few of the locals on the street and sent them photos when I got home. Cost me about $100 from memory and only wish I could have been there when they opened the envelope. Seems like the fear of photographers is more of a first world problem although it was many years ago when I was in Africa.

Thanks for the heads up about the Working With Children Check.

I have also set a goal to improve my street photography skills and started website streetmeet.com.au and will get some cards printed to give to people I photograph. Will be a good challenge.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes applied online last night - just need to visit the Service NSW outlet and pay the money plus confirm my ID which I will do tomorrow.

Update

Had my WWC application approved - strangely it is not a card but a letter which is harder to show/carry. On saying that it is laminated and in my camer bag but not yet had a chance to use it for street photography for various reasons. It is on the one day list but I have set up the website so things are moving although slower than originally planned.

Mark

[Colin B]

This is a very interesting topic and has more angles that I ever thought possible. The same "rules" also apply to adults in my humble opinion.

When I photograph people it is usually when I am on holiday overseas (my other favourite hobby) and I look for colourful characters, especially those in National costumes. Often, people so dressed are doing it for tourists and may ask for money and I have no problem with that. However, any time I wanted a casual photo I always made sure the subject knew I was taking it and did not mind. Usually just holding up the camera with an enquiring look was followed by a smile or, rarely, a wave-off which I respected. The safest subjects are usually performers like musicians and dancers who would probably be disappointed if you didn't show some interest in them but I always made sure I dropped a small donation into their collection box afterwards.

I think it is important at all times when travelling to respect the local people and not treat them like zoo exhibits.

[agb]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-1...public/9641488

[markdphotography]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-1...public/9641488

Some good reading there although I fail to see the uproar over the couple kissing - they chose to do it in a public place rather than their own home. The neighbour issue was interesting but I guess it is an extension of the "paparazzi" rule as the photographer owns the property. I now have a drone so more things to consider although the drone would have to be flying close to someone to identify them but some peope do get upset by new technology.

Thanks for sharing. I should print and keep with my WWC letter and my Ken Duncan tshirt.