[Steve]

I have seen both sides of this argument…

It is a sad fact that the perception of a photographer who is actually doing no harm has been tainted by the media in general, especially where children are concerned. This is further complicated to a lesser extent by the increased awareness of terrorist attacks and more restrictions being placed on photographers when in proximity to important buildings and landmarks, it has now got to the stage where private security firms will prevent you from taking pictures of office buildings and shopping precincts.

Angela has a good view of this, in as much as using your common sense when it feels wrong to photograph a child its probably a good idea not too, however just because the photographer who is aware of the situation may make allowances, this unfortunately doesn’t mean that someone else who is not a photographer understands and will be reasonable as well.

Then you have the black and white of what is and is not allowed as separated by the law. In a public place, as a photographer you are legally allowed to photograph people who happen to be there as long as it is not for publication (without model release forms). Legally this is ok but morally it could be frowned upon. Public parks and swimming pools could give some great photography results but equally for a photographer who is of an unsavoury type, they could also capture images bordering on perverted if they tried hard enough, and that to me is the problem. It’s the few that ruin it for the genuine. I believe people should be protected but the media has built this into such a big deal and blown it out of all proportion that it is now overflowing and affecting the genuine photographer’s ability to capture innocent shots.

The question is where is it heading and what will be the effect on us as photographers?