I was told I couldn't take a picture of Donald Duck!

[antree]

I was in Epcot On Sunday July 13th. We just seen The Hansen Brothers in Norway:cool1: and my son and I was running to meet my DH near Mexico. As we were running by we seen Donald Duck. My DS says mommy look it Donald. I say lets get a picture, he says I am only showing you I don't want to get a picture:confused3 He so weird. So I said OK but I want to get a pic of him because my DB loves Donald. So I walked off to the side of the line and snapped a picture of Donald. No one else I just got his face so I can show my Brother.
The cast memeber there told me I couldn't take a picture and stood with her arms opened in front of Donald so I couldn't get it. WHAT was up with that?:confused3 {but I had already taken the picture}.
I said what, you can't tell me I can't take a picture, I didn't yell or be mean about it. She said get in line or move.:confused3

Honestly, I was not blocking anyone, I didn't step in front of anyone. actually there was no one near me I was way off to the side. I snapped the picture and turned to leave when she made the remark.
When did this start? What is up with that? I found it confusing and upsetting that I was told I couldn't take a picture, and I was outside.

[Madi100]

I think it has something to do with taking pictures of the characters while they are with other families. A lot of times when you are taking your pictures of a character, they are with a child, and you don't have permission to take that child's picture.

[BuzzandAriel'smom]

Yeah they don't like it when you take pictures without waiting in line. Not sure if it's to protect the people in the picture (how many of us have pictures with other people in it?!) or just to create order in character situations.

Sorry she didn't explain it to you or use polite phrasing.

[Sleeping Becca]

The CM probably thought you were trying to line jump.

If I was not allowed to have strangers in my vacation photos, I don't think I would have many photos.

[motofox4]

this happened to us in december when i was trying to take a picture of captain hook.. i didn't want to get a picture with him, i just wanted his picture so in between one family getting their picture and the next walking up, i tried to get a quick shot of him.. the cm told me i couldn't take a picture of him because of "new laws" regarding children.. so even though it was in between families, i guess the chance that a child could have been in the shot is the reason i was told i couldn't take it..

[saraheeyore]

I'm guessing it will have been incase you got a pic of a kid in it
can't take pics of your own kids in swimming pools here incase you get someone elses kid in it

[grimley1968]

I agree it probably is to protect others who wish to take pics with the characters. The OP did say no one was with Donald at the time. However, the line might have been held up just a bit because they were waiting for the OP to finish taking the pic before letting the next guest in line come up to meet Donald. If they had to stop the line every time for someone out in the crowd who wants to snap a random photo, the lines would get extremely slow, so they have to take action, and it may be seen as rude by some guests, to stop this.

[dburg30]

I think it has something to do with taking pictures of the characters while they are with other families. A lot of times when you are taking your pictures of a character, they are with a child, and you don't have permission to take that child's picture.


Were you in the 'exit' lane? Then sometimes they will make you move, but I've taken many pics of the characters between people. I do try to not take pics of other people with characters, but at a place like WDW you do basically have to give up an expectation of privacy.

[dburg30]

this happened to us in december when i was trying to take a picture of captain hook.. i didn't want to get a picture with him, i just wanted his picture so in between one family getting their picture and the next walking up, i tried to get a quick shot of him.. the cm told me i couldn't take a picture of him because of "new laws" regarding children.. so even though it was in between families, i guess the chance that a child could have been in the shot is the reason i was told i couldn't take it..


I'd like to hear of this 'new law' as they call it.

[antree]

Ok I understand you shouldn't take a picture of a child that is not yours. But You know thousands of people are snapping away in Disney and you are going to be in it. I guess they could just try and stop it as they are there.
I don't know:confused3 When I do take pictures of characters I take the face only when childern or adults are around. We were just at the Dance party in Playhouse Disney at DHS and I was snapping away at the characters and only their faces because honestly I don't want strangers in my pictures.

I guess for now on my DS will have to get in line with me and take pictures:)

[mom2minniemouse]

That's really, REALLY strange if it is a new "law" at WDW. It's DISNEY WORLD. LOL! There are kids everywhere. They can't possibly think that every photo that someone takes in a park crowded with children won't have someone else's kid in it. :rotfl2: That would make taking any pictures in places like Crystal Palace next to impossible. LOL!

[rainwatter]

as for the whole kid in the picture thing, if that was truely the case, you wouldn't be able to take pictures anywhere. My husband took a picture of DD and I on Dumbo, and guesse what, there are other kids on the ride, other kids in line, other kids walking around, other kids meeting with a character in the background....

At the character meals, there's DD with Jasmin, and right behind her other kiddos with Mulan plain as day.

Or what about group shots on rides? I purchased picts of DD and I on Dinosaur, Test Track, Splash Mountain... and all of them have other kids in it whose parents may or may not have ok'd my purchasing their childs photo. I also don't remember being asked if I wanted my DD's photo available for others...

My guess is that they don't want people "cutting" or getting in the way and they are using the "there could be kids" line to simplify the process.

[HdnMickeyGrl]

I think if that law really prohibited taking pictures of other people's kids then no one could bring a camera to the parks. But I agree, I think it was probabaly just to prevent the idea of line jumping. I've always thought they should allow a pause so people could get a "just character picture" in. That could take care of 10 people at once. Maybe allow it right before the character is going to leave. Everyone can snap a photo at the same time and then the character can leave.

[sorcerormickey]

Yes, I believe it was because someone else was there.

We had a problem at Star Wars Weekends with a former-DISer taking pics of my boyfriend with his nephew visiting a character. I freaked out on him and told him to stop, but he really didn't care. :rolleyes:

Maybe CMs have been told to watch for this sort of thing. :confused3

[HdnMickeyGrl]

Not to get side tracked but did you know they can zoom into and recenter the ride photos. So if you only want you or you and your family etc... they can zoom in and recenter the photo and then you don't get the random extra folks.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[TheRustyScupper]

The CM probably thought you were trying to line jump.

1) Imagine if several people starting moving around the line to take pictures.
2) All of a sudden, the line doesn't exist any longer.
3) Others waiting for pictures would step out of line.
4) It is simple courtesy to the characters and to other guests.

NOTE: Talks of taking pictures of other kids may or may not be true and may or may not be an excuse. I just have not heard of such a "new rule". But, it certainly could be real.

[antree]

Just for the record, I know you weren't there and what not, but I was no where near the line to try to line jump. I was not holding anyone up as a little girl was walking up to him a snapped a picture of Donald I was far away enough that i zoomed all the way in to him and the reason the cast member saw me was because no one was around me. I was in no ones way. So maybe it was the idea it wasn't my child. But again kids pictures are be taken everywhere. My DD14 told me that while she was getting her picture taken in front of the castle by a photopass person. Some one took their picture too in front of the Castle.
There is just no way of stopping it.

[mickeyluv'r]

I'm with Rusty Scupper on this one. I think it has more to do with crowd control.

You maybe were not crowding the character...but the next person might be five feet in front of you - and the next five feet in front of that person....If the handler doesn't shut down the taking of pics by people not in line, then the situation can quickly escalate - and trust me - the folks who have waited ten miuntes in line are gonna be upset if someone else can just run up the side and get a pic without waiting.

Really, I'm not part of the WDW police crew...but I do think in this case there's safety issues.:)

[Jenvenza]

IDK, I think it is a bit strange. Especially if it is over not taking pictures of other children. I cannot imagine how many kids have probably made their way into photos of ours. I would love to only have my family in it, but Disney has quite a few kids running around. ;) Sorry she was rude to you!

[Tink3Bell]

Just learned something new!

[ajh88]

Yeah, I hadn't heard of this either - interesting to know. We have several pictures of characters from our last trip where we weren't waiting for autographs, but snapped them from a distance with no issues. I certainly don't expect them to stop & pose for me, but I can't imagine being told not to take the picture at all.

And slightly OT, but we were just going through pictures from last year's trip (will I ever catch up!), and I kicked out a bunch because there were too many strangers in them!

[Robo]

What would someone be able to do to a photo shot at Disney World that would be of any actual HARM to the person in it?


(I am using the word HARM specifically.)

[marmar]

My husband & I do Adult trips to WDW. For many years we have taken some beautiful close up of Characters during these meet & sign sessions. In most cases we actually wait for a super short child who won't even show up in the photo. We get wonderful close ups of the face characters that way (Cinderella, Belle, Mad Hatter, Alice, Mary Poppins etc). I sure hope we don't have problems in the future.

If they move the characters into special areas then it is more difficult for us. That seems to be the trend. But I understand this gives them better Crowd control. It also keeps strangers from taking pictures of children.
Example is that there is now a "shop" in the UK where children can see Mary Poppins, Pooh & Co, Alice or Peter Pan. We used to get lots of pictures at the Studios as the chars used to rotate thru the hub area every 30 mins. They are now back in little nooks along the walkways.

[sorcerormickey]

What would someone be able to do to a photo shot at Disney World that would be of any actual HARM to the person in it?


(I am using the word HARM specifically.)


In our case, the person taking the photo was known on this board as being very weird and who knows what he was planning on doing with pics of my 5 yo nephew. He doesn't even know him - why would he need his photo?

[Robo]

In our case, the person taking the photo was known on this board as being very weird and who knows what he was planning on doing with pics of my 5 yo nephew. He doesn't even know him - why would he need his photo?

What HARM could come to a person from having a photo taken of them?

[CanadianGuy]

Well to be the dark side for a second..

Now that person "B" has photographic evidence of what person "A"'s nephew looks like..

[Nicoleclaw]

The CM probably thought you were trying to line jump.

If I was not allowed to have strangers in my vacation photos, I don't think I would have many photos.

LOL that is funny. I know as a teacher, in recent years, we have had to get signatures from parents that says their kid can be photographed by the school, teachers, etc. It is almost impossible to take a picture of stuff in Disney without other people in it...unless you can go when it is really really slow I guess.
We took a pic of Belle and the Beast (along with a couple other people) from the side once. Noone else was in it. We rushed out of dinner at 540 because they were supposed to be out there till 6. We got there by 545 and they had closed the line already!! :(

[sorcerormickey]

What HARM could come to a person from having a photo taken of them?

Because they could be some perv and I don't want them having a photo of my nephew - THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!

[NYDisneyKid]

You could be using a camera phone and who would know? ºOº

[PrincessKsMom]

If this is the case, how come it's alright for the photopass photogs to take pictures in front of the Castle, the Sorcerer's hat, RnR, etc.? There are ALWAYS other people in the pictures. Also, how many times have you/your family waited on line to get a picture with the characters and someone else's kid jumps in the picture? If this is the new trend, then Disney better order up some more cast members, because I, as an adult, will stand in line to have my picture taken if this is the only way I can. I think it's ridiculous. You're in a public place where at least 50% of the adults in the park are carrying cameras. It's a picture for God's sake. It doesn't mean they know where you live, your telephone number, etc. People are just too crazy and paranoid -- and I've been called a helicopter parent on these boards?! Please. :lmao:

[Robo]

Fewer duck pictures means a greener planet for everyone.

[Cool-Beans]

A friend of mine wanted to take a pic of one of the princesses once...or maybe it was Alice...it was a face character, anyway. Back behind LTT near what now the smoking area.

We waited in line and when our turn came she explained that she just wanted a pic and they told her that she couldn't do that. One of us had to go stand with her.

This was three or four years ago.

[Robo]

e waited in line and when our turn came she explained that she just wanted a pic and they told her that she couldn't do that. One of us had to go stand with her.



Maybe she was afraid. You know how fragile real princesses are!

[kaleighmariesmom]

I think that is weird because you dont know how many times people would run up and take pictures of the character with my DD. My DH joked that people must love our DD because she must have been in like 100 pics. No CM ever said anything to the people who were snapping photos with her in them. and this was only 2 months ago. I think it is kinda better when the CM says something. :confused3 :confused3

[pixiedustforever]

What's next? :eek: Will photopass shares become "illegal"?
You will end up with pictures on a CD of total strangers! :scared1:

[NYDisneyKid]

And what about character breakfast's? The characters pose with the kids and the parents are snapping away and I'm sure there are "other kids" in the backround. ºOº

[LadyDuchess]

I don't know about the rest of the population, but I for one never walk in front of someone else's photo if I can help it.

Several years back I was in line to meet Jasmine. Just as it was my turn, a woman was trying to snap a photo of the princess. Me, being somewhat overly considerate of others at times, stayed back so I wouldn't ruin the woman's picture, much to the chagrin of the character attendant. The CM told me to please go ahead while she told the other woman that if she wanted a picture, she'd need to take it from a distance or else stand in line.

Afterwards, the CM apologized to me and told me that she knew I was just trying to be courteous, but that allowing others to take pictures holds up the line and fewer people get to meet the character as a result.

(Also, I've witnessed on several occasions people who weren't waiting in line asking the next guests to please wait a minute so they can snap a picture -- and then throwing complete tantrums when other people were blocking their shot!)

Just my experiences with it. But like I said, my instance happened probably 5 years ago, so I don't think it's anything new... maybe it just depends on the CM? I seriously doubt it has anything to do with getting other children in the picture.

[imthatgirl]

i have lenses that i bring to disney that are up to 14x, and im in the process of saving for a larger one. you wouldnt even know if i took a close up of a character or your child with a character, and neither would the CM. maybe the CM was on a power trip.
but i dont want pictures of your kids, like Robo pointed out, what in the world would i do with them?

[Josh'sDad1974]

First off, I'm a newspaper photographer. There are no laws against taking photos of other people's kids. Now Disney may have a policy against it but there are no federal laws. Escentially, whatever you can see from a public access area (street, etc.) is in the public domain and you can photograph whatever and whomever you would like. Now does it make it right, who knows! I use good judgement when taking photos for my newspaper. I make sure a kid's parent is around when I take my pictures. The only time I don't is when the kid is older (say 12 and up). The schools have rules but they really don't enforce them until it is for their benefit. But Disney is private property and they can do whatever they would like.

[Feralpeg]

I take pictures of the characters all the time without standing in line. I just stand a ways off and use my zoom. I just get the character. I wait until the child walks away. I know the CMs are touchy about this, but I'm not standing in line to take a picture of the character by him or herself. I certainly don't want pictures of other peoples' kids.

Personally, I think it is a total over reaction. I guess it is possible that someone bad could take a picture of a kid at WDW. That could happen anywhere. Most people just want a picture of the character.

[LadyDuchess]

If someone wanted a picture of your child, they wouldn't need to wait until the child's posed next to Cinderella -- it's just as easy (and more opportune) to take their picture as they're walking through Adventureland or boarding Dumbo. The idea that some creepy pedophile specifically wants a picture of your child WITH a character is a little silly to me (although I'm certainly not saying it isn't possible... there are indeed some weirdos out there).

I'm just saying that keeping people from snapping pictures without waiting in line does NOT seem like an effort to keep strangers from taking pictures of your children. Maybe it will prevent someone from getting a pic of your kid next to Mickey, but once the child walks three feet away, there's nothing to prevent hundreds of people from taking Little Johnny's picture.

I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever been told not to take pictures of the character while waiting in line to meet that character (as in, you're still standing in an orderly line, you just happen to take a picture while you're waiting).

[TDC Nala]

indeed - anyone who was after photos of children could just take lots of random pictures of children all over the parks without being observed - why would they specifically wait around and be really obvious about taking photos of children with characters?

I think it's just what was theorized earlier - taking photos of a character from outside the line holds up the line, because when the people in the line see you they try not to get into your photo.

[all4disney98]

What HARM could come to a person from having a photo taken of them?

Perhaps because there are sick people out there that post things on the internet. They could photoshop some crazy stuff.

I am not saying that there is a law about taking these pictures, I am leaning more towards Disney trying to keep the lines in order etc. However, if there is a law, Disney probably doesn't care what you do on your own time in terms of strangers in your pictures, but these character greetings are a "Disney sponsored event" and perhaps they need to to do their due diligence in trying to keep kids out of the pictures of strangers.

I have no idea, just trying to figure out why this would happen...

[bennyb98]

I can tell you that the CM in the situation was trying to prevent you from taking pictures not of Donald but of the other guests with Donald at the time. I'm sure your intentions were harmless but look at it from the perspective of the other person with the character.

For example, this happened to me one time, I was visiting Peter Pan and having a good conversation with him and he took and put his hat on my head and was joking around with me when out of the blue a woman came up to the side just about three feet from us and starting taking pictures. Not only did it creep me out a bit but it ruined the rest of the moment as the CM had to cross over to ask her to stop taking photos. So not only did it creep me out but it ruined the rest of the experience for me. So please take that into consideration the next time. And I have also seen lots of people wait in line to get pictures of characters by them selves, which is never a problem.

[Robo]

For example, this happened to me one time, I was visiting Peter Pan and having a good conversation with him and he took and put his hat on my head and was joking around with me when out of the blue a woman came up to the side just about three feet from us and starting taking pictures. Not only did it creep me out a bit but it ruined the rest of the moment as the CM had to cross over to ask her to stop taking photos. So not only did it creep me out but it ruined the rest of the experience for me.

Just goes to show you...

[livndisney]

I can tell you that the CM in the situation was trying to prevent you from taking pictures not of Donald but of the other guests with Donald at the time. I'm sure your intentions were harmless but look at it from the perspective of the other person with the character.

For example, this happened to me one time, I was visiting Peter Pan and having a good conversation with him and he took and put his hat on my head and was joking around with me when out of the blue a woman came up to the side just about three feet from us and starting taking pictures. Not only did it creep me out a bit but it ruined the rest of the moment as the CM had to cross over to ask her to stop taking photos. So not only did it creep me out but it ruined the rest of the experience for me. So please take that into consideration the next time. And I have also seen lots of people wait in line to get pictures of characters by them selves, which is never a problem.

We had an issue with someone INSISTING they could take a picture of my child. The CM called security. Security told me there is a policy in place for these matters (I have no idea how often it is enforced, much the same as lots of WDW policies). The person taking the pictures flipped out when security asked to look at the camera.

I don't know if anyone watched the Steve Wilkos show last week . He had a guy on that has a website to watch and "rate" young girls. His site tells people where to go to see young girls and how to get their pictures and "get close to them". I guess this guy has been banned from the entire state of California and various other places. So as disgusting as it is to think about-freaks are out there. (Not suggesting that is what the OP was doing)

[TDC Nala]

Yes, but the freaks will get the pictures anyway, they aren't going to give a darn whether or not there is a character in the photo, so I can't think this is entirely about photos of children.

[Chipmunk89]

I think it has something to do with taking pictures of the characters while they are with other families. A lot of times when you are taking your pictures of a character, they are with a child, and you don't have permission to take that child's picture.

This happened with us this past June. We were with Alice, Winnie, Eeyore, and Tigger at Epcot, and the CM announced we were the last family. We were having a great time with Alice. (I think DS8 was:love: ) Then another family came up and wanted pictures. The CM explained we were the last family. They got hot! Started getting loud saying they were in line in front of us. They weren't even in the store, when we were in line. Well, we are getting our pictures with Alice, and the one guy started snapping pictures. He even told the CMs to move out of his way! Well, the CM explained they are not allowed to take pictures of other families with the characters. Then theyasked him to leave and said they were going to call security. He was awfully loud and rude.

It did put a damper on the moment. But I think the CMs did a wonderful job at handling the situation.

[imthatgirl]

i get what everyone is saying about the sickos, but it if that were really the case and DW was really concerned about that, wouldnt there be rules about cameras at pools? or at least have people watching for that at the pools?

[connie1042]

I was reading the thread about the pictures and characters. Someone said you can't take pictures of your kids in the pools at Disney, because you might get other kids in the pictures. Is that really true?:confused3

[imthatgirl]

I was reading the thread about the pictures and characters. Someone said you can't take pictures of your kids in the pools at Disney, because you might get other kids in the pictures. Is that really true?:confused3

weve always taken pictures of our kids at the pools.

[Chipmunk89]

I was reading the thread about the pictures and characters. Someone said you can't take pictures of your kids in the pools at Disney, because you might get other kids in the pictures. Is that really true?:confused3

No one ever said anything to us. I took pictures of my family at POP's pool, as well as the WP.

[Robo]

If we can't take pictures of Donald, the terrorists win.

[Mickey'sApprentice]

As someone said, WDW is private property.

I could see a situation where a kid could be abducted by a sicko and killed and Disney would then be open for 1) really bad press, and 2) a really expensive lawsuit.

By implementing this policy, Disney is creating a paper trail that shows they are are sensitive to issues of this nature, and does everything possible to protect guest.

My sister is a bit more mindful of her kids while at Disney because she understands that pedophiles try to be in places where there are a lot of kids. Please no flames, I know Disney does everything it can to protect kids.

[Chipmunk89]

If we can't take pictures of Donald, the terrorists win.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :eek:

[TDC Nala]

As someone said, WDW is private property.

I could see a situation where a kid could be abducted by a sicko and killed and Disney would then be open for 1) really bad press, and 2) a really expensive lawsuit.

By implementing this policy, Disney is creating a paper trail that shows they are are sensitive to issues of this nature, and does everything possible to protect guest.

My sister is a bit more mindful of her kids while at Disney because she understands that pedophiles try to be in places where there are a lot of kids. Please no flames, I know Disney does everything it can to protect kids.

This makes no sense legally. How would WDW be at fault because some pervert took a picture of a child there? There's no way to genuinely protect the guests from other guests with cameras except by banning all photography that isn't specifically posed and taken in areas situated away from other guests...in other words, if they had a real policy that was meant to protect children from pedophiles with cameras, you couldn't bring a camera, a video camera, or a cellphone with photographic capability onto Walt Disney World property.

There was in fact a case where a series of child pornography photos were recognized as having been taken at a WDW resort (the photographer was the girl's adoptive father, so it wasn't a case involving an abduction, and as far as I know there is no liability on the part of Disney). Would they not allow cameras in the resort rooms either?

If they do have a rule that no one outside the character line may take photographs of characters for which a meet/greet line has been established, whether or not there are people with the character, it's most likely a matter of trying to control the line. The child photography reason makes absolutely no genuine sense.

[PixieDust32]

I was in Epcot On Sunday July 13th. We just seen The Hansen Brothers in Norway:cool1: and my son and I was running to meet my DH near Mexico. As we were running by we seen Donald Duck. My DS says mommy look it Donald. I say lets get a picture, he says I am only showing you I don't want to get a picture:confused3 He so weird. So I said OK but I want to get a pic of him because my DB loves Donald. So I walked off to the side of the line and snapped a picture of Donald. No one else I just got his face so I can show my Brother.
The cast memeber there told me I couldn't take a picture and stood with her arms opened in front of Donald so I couldn't get it. WHAT was up with that?:confused3 {but I had already taken the picture}.
I said what, you can't tell me I can't take a picture, I didn't yell or be mean about it. She said get in line or move.:confused3

Honestly, I was not blocking anyone, I didn't step in front of anyone. actually there was no one near me I was way off to the side. I snapped the picture and turned to leave when she made the remark.
When did this start? What is up with that? I found it confusing and upsetting that I was told I couldn't take a picture, and I was outside.


OMG!! The same thing happened to us with the same character around the same date.

The lady was so rude to my poor mom and I got angry, I even went into the mexican pavillion and talked to the manager because my DD was crying.

OK, we were in line to see Donald Duck, then when it was my DD's turn, my Mom was standing on the side waiting for DD's turn and when DD was ready for the pic the lady yelled at my Mom, "excuse me, that IS NOT YOUR FAMILY so stop taking pictures" and everybody turned to see my poor Mom, she was so embarrased and said, "She's my grandaugther". OMG! :mad:

I told CM, she's my Mom why would she be taking a picture of a stranger kid, the CM lady didn't apologized or nothing, the photopass guy told me that many people just snapped pics of the characters without getting in line, I told him that they way the CM talked to my Mom was rude and that never happened to us with any other character then DD had a small card for the characters to sign for her scrapbook and Donald Duck refused to sign the card.
I guess he heard me talking to the photopass guy about the CM lady and got angry, he told the photopass guy that he already signed the book and that was it! :mad: :sad2: then DD wanted to give him a hug as she does with all the characters and he refused. Every other character hugged her and signed the little cards except for him.

DD was crying because she felt rejected by a character, the manager told me to write a letter to disney and that she was going to take care of it but that was it, Donald Duck ruined my DD's day, she was sad the rest of the day.

[PixieDust32]

I understand their policy but CM didn't even ask my Mom if she was with us, she does not look like a person from "to catch a predator" and then Donald Duck took it personal and refuse to sign the card!

[MonicaInFlorida]

Wow, sounds like Donald and his handler were being total jerks.

Note to self... don't piss off The Donald!

[PixieDust32]

Wow, sounds like Donald and his handler were being total jerks.

Note to self... don't piss off The Donald!

Indeed!
He was the only one that refused to sign the little cards and refused to hug my DD. I felt so terrible when I saw my DD's face when he pushed her away and said "no" with his hand. :sad1:

Needless to say that I saw many people taking pictures of the characters 'on the side' and the handler didn't say anything, just with 'that' Donald.

We told DD that maybe Donald didn't know he could sign the cards and that maybe he didn't know she wanted a hug. :sick:

[ccfmioa]

There is a "video voyeurism" law that was passed in 2004 and updated in 2007, that effective July 1, 2008 that implies voyeurism is the taking of someone's photo that has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Disney may be trying to protect themselves from being a party to a lawsuit if someone were to find their child on an inappropriate web site.

This is likely why they are moving many of the character interactions of to smaller coves and inside buildings where they can be controlled. By controlling the access to characters and those who are around them.

Disney cannot stop someone from taking a photo of you or your family standing in front of the castle, or walking down Main Street, simply because then they would have to not allow photography in the parks.

It is much like when active production or press photography is in the park. They typically have a sign posted near the main gate and the controlled area notifying you of the actions. Thus entering those areas you are consenting to having your photograph taken.

As a photographer for a newspaper if I took photos of an individual child I always got parental permission to publish it. If I was taking photos of the mall at Christmas time, unless I was framing on one particular person I never needed permission, except of the property owner.

I have worked several years in the theme park industry and have seen guest ask to have there photo taken off the ride photo board. Had someone who was involved in a custody battle complain about a private investigator taking there photo in the parks. We did as that individual photographer to leave the park.

Its likely Disney is just being extra cautious with interpretations of laws and trying to keep the line from being held up while people take photos. The photo time is limited so churning through a line is the #1 responsibility of the character assistant.

[World Bouncer]

Sounds like a couple people had some bad experiences :sad2:
We have never had any bad experiences with characters and hope we never do! Hope that your families have lots of good experiences to outweigh the silly & unmagical behavior that caused some bad ones.

I am sure it is all just crowd control... no excuse for rude behavior by CM's though.

There is no way Disney would be able to control picture taking and wow... imagine all the videos that you and your family may be in just because you were in the same area as someone else.

[SurfinTX]

This has to be about crowd control. At no time while I was at Disney did I hear from any CM that there was an issue about taking pictures of other people. As a photographer you have to use common sense and not intrude on whichever moment you happen to witness. Stay well back. Take a lot of pictures and edit them out later if you have to...:wizard:

[all4disney98]

There is no way Disney would be able to control picture taking and wow... imagine all the videos that you and your family may be in just because you were in the same area as someone else.

I cringe when I think of how many pictures I may be in just walking through the background. If I look silly when I am posing in a picture, Ican't even imagine what I look like naturally...yuck!

[disnut8]

Yeah, the reason for not being able to take pictures of the characters without standing in line is because of having a child in the picture. I put this question out on a women's forum when I first heard about it and every single one with a small child said they would not like it if their child's picture was snapped without their permission.

However, there are plenty of times when I've taken pictures with kids in them of crowds or swimming pools, or of resort icons and there are kids in there. But I think the difference is the kids with the characters are posed. They aren't random shots that can't be controlled.

I do continue to take photos of characters but I'm far enough away from the line not to be a problem.

[Renee845]

I'm guessing it will have been incase you got a pic of a kid in it
can't take pics of your own kids in swimming pools here incase you get someone elses kid in it


You can't take pictures at the pool?!

[dburg30]

If it's a public area, you pretty much have the right to take any picture you want. Now, if you are approached by someone and asked to not take their picture, you arent allowed to take their picture after that. But, I'm pretty sure if you look up some photo laws, so long as you are taking pics only for your own use, not for relsale or anything like that, that you can pretty much take pics of anything. If I'm on the sidewalk, or the road or any public area, I'm allowed to take pictures of your house with no permission. I cant come onto your land of course.

[skater]

I think I'd rather clean bathrooms at Disney than be a character handler :laughing: .

[asta]

This isn't about a character photo issue but maybe someone can help. I attempted to take a photo of my daughters in front of the monorail at the GF and was stopped by a CM who told me that photos were not allowed. The monorail was still loading people so it was not about to leave and there were no other people in the background. I thought he was joking for a minute but realized from the tone of his voice that he was very serious. Does anyone know if this is a policy?

[Robo]

This isn't about a character photo issue but maybe someone can help. I attempted to take a photo of my daughters in front of the monorail at the GF and was stopped by a CM who told me that photos were not allowed. The monorail was still loading people so it was not about to leave and there were no other people in the background. I thought he was joking for a minute but realized from the tone of his voice that he was very serious. Does anyone know if this is a policy?

If you were standing in the LOADING area (past the gates) you can't loiter there for safety reasons.

[sbell111]

Some random thoughts from reading this thread:What HARM could come to a person from having a photo taken of them?Everybody knows that photographs steal people's souls.... I guess this guy has been banned from the entire state of California and various other places. So as disgusting as it is to think about-freaks are out there. (Not suggesting that is what the OP was doing)I'm pretty sure that the Constitution still allows for travel across state lines. Therefore, I don't believe that anyone could possibly be banned from a state.... I could see a situation where a kid could be abducted by a sicko and killed and Disney would then be open for 1) really bad press, and 2) a really expensive lawsuit. ...I can't see a connection between this comment and the thread. Whether or not someone is using a camera, kids could be abducted. I work from the assumption that parents are aware of this fact and make an extra effort to keep their children within their control while on vacation.

Perhaps I just didn't get the 'child stealer' feature on my camera. It seems like I'm finding something missing with my 20d almost every day.There is a "video voyeurism" law that was passed in 2004 and updated in 2007, that effective July 1, 2008 that implies voyeurism is the taking of someone's photo that has a reasonable expectation of privacy. ...No judge in this country is going to take the position that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in any public, non-restroom area at WDW.

[livie1205]

if I am on vacation and want to take photos of MY family in a public place and someones elses kids are in the background TO BAD....I am not going to just take a photo of a strange kid but I will take them of my family and of the park in general UNLESS they put up signs that say NO PHOTOS ......I mean really...I DO NOT want photos of your kids...even if they are cute;)

[merryweather20]

What HARM could come to a person from having a photo taken of them?

Are you kidding here? This is a huge problem. Many schools have had to ID parents at games and meets, to avoid letting in the unknown pedophiles that had been taking pictures of their children, zooming in on specific areas, and posting the pictures on the internet with lewd comments. That would constitute HARM to me.

I have relatives with foster children and they are not allowed to be photographed, and for good reasons, you guessed it to avoid HARM. They took the kids to an event one time, a stranger took photographs of the children, when my Uncle told the guy no way, and asked for the film, the guy became violent. My Uncle called the cops and they took the situation very seriously.

At a place like DIsney the kids would wear hats and sunglasses, they wouldn't go to the stage if picked at a show, and they ask the CM to turn off the camera so they can go on the photograph rides. Hopefully most people would realize that you don't take pictures of other peoples children without asking first, but I have seen to many threads on here where people feel entitled to do so because GASP the kids went out in public!

I guess I'm just a better photographer than the other posters, I looked at my photos, and the only ones including other people are distant indistinguishable crowd shots.

I'd expect someone to ask first before taking a picture of my dog for pete sakes. At best taking picturs without asking first is just rude, at worst it is sick.

[PrincessKsMom]

... don't piss off The Donald!YOU'RE FIRED! :rotfl:

There is a "video voyeurism" law that was passed in 2004 and updated in 2007, that effective July 1, 2008 that implies voyeurism is the taking of someone's photo that has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I can't imagine anyone has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in WDW. What I don't understand is someone posted earlier that they were told they could not take a picture of just the character (after standing in line and waiting their turn), unless someone was in the picture. Does this mean that I need to wait in line and then MUST have either my DD12 (who doesn't want to) or my DM60+ in the picture? This is stupid. Sounds like Disney doesn't know which end is up.

[Robo]

Are you kidding here? This is a huge problem. Many schools have had to ID parents at games and meets, to avoid letting in the unknown pedophiles that had been taking pictures of their children, zooming in on specific areas, and posting the pictures on the internet with lewd comments. That would constitute HARM to me.

I have relatives with foster children and they are not allowed to be photographed, and for good reasons, you guessed it to avoid HARM. They took the kids to an event one time, a stranger took photographs of the children, when my Uncle told the guy no way, and asked for the film, the guy became violent. My Uncle called the cops and they took the situation very seriously.

At a place like DIsney the kids would wear hats and sunglasses, they wouldn't go to the stage if picked at a show, and they ask the CM to turn off the camera so they can go on the photograph rides. Hopefully most people would realize that you don't take pictures of other peoples children without asking first, but I have seen to many threads on here where people feel entitled to do so because GASP the kids went out in public!

I guess I'm just a better photographer than the other posters, I looked at my photos, and the only ones including other people are distant indistinguishable crowd shots.

I'd expect someone to ask first before taking a picture of my dog for pete sakes. At best taking picturs without asking first is just rude, at worst it is sick.

I don't see any reference to HARM from taking photos in the above.

[dburg30]

Are you kidding here? This is a huge problem. Many schools have had to ID parents at games and meets, to avoid letting in the unknown pedophiles that had been taking pictures of their children, zooming in on specific areas, and posting the pictures on the internet with lewd comments. That would constitute HARM to me.

I have relatives with foster children and they are not allowed to be photographed, and for good reasons, you guessed it to avoid HARM. They took the kids to an event one time, a stranger took photographs of the children, when my Uncle told the guy no way, and asked for the film, the guy became violent. My Uncle called the cops and they took the situation very seriously.

At a place like DIsney the kids would wear hats and sunglasses, they wouldn't go to the stage if picked at a show, and they ask the CM to turn off the camera so they can go on the photograph rides. Hopefully most people would realize that you don't take pictures of other peoples children without asking first, but I have seen to many threads on here where people feel entitled to do so because GASP the kids went out in public!

I guess I'm just a better photographer than the other posters, I looked at my photos, and the only ones including other people are distant indistinguishable crowd shots.

I'd expect someone to ask first before taking a picture of my dog for pete sakes. At best taking picturs without asking first is just rude, at worst it is sick.

Wow.. just wow..

But the bottom line is, is the USA, if you are in public, you give up certain rights to privacy. Again, showers, changing rooms, bathrooms etc etc you still have the right to expect a certain amount of privacy. But in public, you are fair game, unless you do ask to not be photograhped, and even that can only go so far, like at WDW if you asked not to be photographed, and are standing in front of the castle around the partners statue, you'd have a hard time winning that case if someone was taking a picture of the area and not specificially of you. And if you ask not to be photographed, you cant demand the film, or demand that pictures be deleted from previous pictures..

[dburg30]

I don't see any reference to HARM from taking photos in the above.


Possible sickness re: the first paragraph, maybe, and possibly even a law or 2 being broken, but actual HARM to the child? I have to agree with Robo here.

[merryweather20]

I don't see any reference to HARM from taking photos in the above.

Is this comment some sort of joke:confused3

:confused3 Couldn't be more obvvious to me. How could you possibly think the situation in the first paragraph is not HARM.

As for the second I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, not all children in the Foster system have led the most safe and worry free lives and unfortunately they need privacy. Information about their whereabouts could be easily used to take them out of their safe Foster home, and back into a situation of HARM.

[merryweather20]

Possible sickness re: the first paragraph, maybe, and possibly even a law or 2 being broken, but actual HARM to the child? I have to agree with Robo here.

I guess I just don't live in the bright sunshiney world that you do. I live in a world where the first situation would be extremely harrassing, terrifying, and cause for psychological problems, and the second situation could return the child to a situation where they were being beaten and abused. How is this not HARM? Its nothing I would want any of my relatives kids to go through. Its nothing any child needs to go through.

[PrincessKsMom]

I guess I just don't live in the bright sunshiney world that you do. I live in a world where the first situation would be extremely harrassing, terrifying, and cause for psychological problems, and the second situation could return the child to a situation where they were being beaten and abused. How is this not HARM? Its nothing I would want any of my relatives kids to go through.

I think the point being made is no physical harm can come to a child from having their photograph taken. A photo cannot harm. What someone does with that photo is another thing entirely. BTW, when you take the kids to the store, school, church, etc. someone could be taking their pictures and you'd never know. It's probably more likely that will happen during your every day life, than some pervert following you to Disney. I don't doubt that pedophiles vacation at Disney, but you'll never be able to pick them out in a crowd. There's really not much you can do. And regarding asking a Photopass photographer to shut off the camera on a ride, what about the other people who might want their picture taken? You give up any right to privacy when you're in a public place.

[Robo]

As for the second I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, not all children in the Foster system have led the most safe and worry free lives and unfortunately they need privacy. Information about their whereabouts could be easily used to take them out of their safe Foster home, and back into a situation of HARM.

Knowing that they were standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk on Thursday, the 14th of May, can't alert a snatcher to their location on the 26th of May.

[Phibbles]

I have relatives with foster children and they are not allowed to be photographed

At a place like DIsney the kids would wear hats and sunglasses, they wouldn't go to the stage if picked at a show, and they ask the CM to turn off the camera so they can go on the photograph rides.

Foster children? Sounds more like witness protection. That is a lot of precaution to protect a kid from a bad parent.

[Phibbles]

Knowing that they were standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk on Thursday, the 14th of May, can't alert a snatcher to their location on the 26th of May.

:rotfl:

[PixieDust32]

Give me a break, god knows in how many pics my kids are in, and if that was the 'rule' how come only that particular handler mentioned? In my case the handler and the character were rude.

[PixieDust32]

Yes, but the freaks will get the pictures anyway, they aren't going to give a darn whether or not there is a character in the photo, so I can't think this is entirely about photos of children.

Exactly! If the pervs want to take pics of the children they can do it and we won't even know it, please!

[merryweather20]

Knowing that they were standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk on Thursday, the 14th of May, can't alert a snatcher to their location on the 26th of May.

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,

[Robo]

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,

A little less beating would make your points seem less outrageous.

I have a picture of ME in Florida, but I'm not there NOW.

[MonicaInFlorida]

I think the point being made is no physical harm can come to a child from having their photograph taken. A photo cannot harm. What someone does with that photo is another thing entirely. BTW, when you take the kids to the store, school, church, etc. someone could be taking their pictures and you'd never know. It's probably more likely that will happen during your every day life, than some pervert following you to Disney. I don't doubt that pedophiles vacation at Disney, but you'll never be able to pick them out in a crowd. There's really not much you can do. And regarding asking a Photopass photographer to shut off the camera on a ride, what about the other people who might want their picture taken? You give up any right to privacy when you're in a public place.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[dburg30]

I guess I just don't live in the bright sunshiney world that you do. I live in a world where the first situation would be extremely harrassing, terrifying, and cause for psychological problems, and the second situation could return the child to a situation where they were being beaten and abused. How is this not HARM? Its nothing I would want any of my relatives kids to go through. Its nothing any child needs to go through.

It's not HARM because the actul child involved, doesnt know it is involved. Now if it was full body pics of them in a bathing suit and someone posts it with some lewd comments I GUESS it could maybe somehow, possibly, somewhere down the line, in some remote possibility come back to 'haunt them' But let's say someone takes a picture of ONLY their bottom and they post it. That is ALL they take a picture of, HOW could that HARM the child?

Again, I NEVER said it was right OR legal

[PrincessKsMom]

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,


And you apparently know what they look like, so everyone else isn't them. BTW, do you have an order of protection out against these people? If you don't, maybe you should.

[merryweather20]

Wow.. just wow..

But the bottom line is, is the USA, if you are in public, you give up certain rights to privacy. Again, showers, changing rooms, bathrooms etc etc you still have the right to expect a certain amount of privacy. But in public, you are fair game, unless you do ask to not be photograhped, and even that can only go so far, like at WDW if you asked not to be photographed, and are standing in front of the castle around the partners statue, you'd have a hard time winning that case if someone was taking a picture of the area and not specificially of you. And if you ask not to be photographed, you cant demand the film, or demand that pictures be deleted from previous pictures..

Legality doesn't much matter does it? Its simply not right. Its not the sort of thing I would expect any reasonable adult to do. As I said before, at best its rude at worst its sick.

In th first situation it was perfectly legal for the persons to maintain the web-sites and lewd comments and photos of the poor kids, but that doesn'tmake it right.

You most certainly can demand the film, or demand that the pictures be deleted. Where is this law that says I can't? In the case of the man that was arrested, he was on the hook for harassing the family and for his inappropriate conduct with the police officer. My Uncle didn't even get a warning for demanding the film, can't say I was surprised.

Reading all these posts with people like Robo and Phibbles who think that sexually harassing children, and maintaining privacy for abused children is a joke, is a little depresing. But I guess I'll try to turn it around and be glad that they live such worry free lives and they don't know the pain of caring for a child thats gone through them.

[sbell111]

Do I have to beat you over the head here? They know they were in Florida, they know what their Foster parents look like etc, etc,

I have just a few thoughts about your position.

First, what would stop this nefarious PI from taking your picture while you weren't talking to Donald? After all, if one was trying to snap a pic of a particular party, it would be easy peasey to set up a shot of some bit of theming and 'accidently' have you in the shot. Since the mouse doesn't have cast members out and about scolding people for taking pictures on Main Street and, in fact, pay cast members to take snaps that pretty much always have random people in them, I suspect that Donald's attitude has nothing to do with child safety.

Second, your presumption is that the person taking the pic would be somehow involved with the child's parent, since it would not matter if your face was in some random person's pics. If this were the case, the parent would a) already know that the child is in Florida, at WDW, and hugging on Donald and b) know what you look like because he followed (or had you followed) to Florida, to WDW, to Donald.

Third, as a foster parent who is, apparently, scared that the parent is going to abscond with the child and place him/her back into 'a situation of HARM', I would think that your primary concern would be keeping the child under your control so that he/she cannot be removed from your care and placed into a 'situation of HARM'. It would not be the monitoring of people taking photos in the most photographed location on the entire planet.

Finally, if you are truly concerned about being in rnadom people's photographs, perhaps WDW is not the best vacation spot for you.

[LadyDuchess]

I'm a little confused about the foster parent thing, are you a) concerned that there are people roaming WDW specifically in search of these kids or b) that a stranger is going to take a picture and it is going to somehow land in the hands of these people?

Also, it seems based on this thread that a lot of people ARE concerned about strangers getting pictures of their children. So I wonder: how many of those concerned have posted "cute" pictures of their children on Disboards or somewhere else? Just because someone didn't snap the photo themselves doesn't mean they can't do weird creepy things with images they saved to their desktop off a website.

[livndisney]

Originally Posted by livndisney
... I guess this guy has been banned from the entire state of California and various other places. So as disgusting as it is to think about-freaks are out there. (Not suggesting that is what the OP was doing)

I'm pretty sure that the Constitution still allows for travel across state lines. Therefore, I don't believe that anyone could possibly be banned from a state.
.

You can believe what you want.

The wording on the permanent injuction says he "can't come within 30 feet of any person under 18 anywhere in California." Sounds like a "BAN" to me.

The new order also prohibits him from contacting, videotaping or photographing children without written consent from their guardian or parent.
Sounds like people DON'T like it when strangers take pictures of their children.

[dburg30]

In th first situation it was perfectly legal for the persons to maintain the web-sites and lewd comments and photos of the poor kids, but that doesn'tmake it right.


No I actually believe that can be illegal, but still no HARM to the child.

You most certainly can demand the film, or demand that the pictures be deleted. Where is this law that says I can't? In the case of the man that was arrested, he was on the hook for harassing the family and for his inappropriate conduct with the police officer. My Uncle didn't even get a warning for demanding the film, can't say I was surprised.

First off, I'm sure there is more to this story. If someone asks me to stop taking pics, I have to, but show me a law where I have to delete / turn over my pictures? Or better yet, WHERE did this take place? If I dont stop, THEN it is harassment.

Reading all these posts with people like Robo and Phibbles who think that sexually harassing children, and maintaining privacy for abused children is a joke, is a little depresing. But I guess I'll try to turn it around and be glad that they live such worry free lives and they don't know the pain of caring for a child thats gone through them.

Again, not really seeing where they said protecting children or sexually harassing children is a joke? :confused3 There is a difference between protecting, and flat out basically holding them hostage from the world.

[sbell111]

Legality doesn't much matter does it? Its simply not right. Its not the sort of thing I would expect any reasonable adult to do. As I said before, at best its rude at worst its sick. ...You are actually taking the position that one should not ever take a photograph at WDW if there is going to be a random stranger in it? You are further taking the stance that taking a picture that has a random stranger in it is unreasonable, rude, and sick?

Should everyone just leave their cameras at home? After all, there is virtually no way to avoid getting strangers in park photos.You most certainly can demand the film, or demand that the pictures be deleted. Where is this law that says I can't? ...You can demand all kinds of things, but you can't enforce those demands. If you demanded that I delete pictures that I took in public areas of WDW, I'd tell you to get bent. If you tried to force your demands, you could find yourself in the pokey.

[dburg30]

You can believe what you want.

The wording on the permanent injuction says he "can't come within 30 feet of any person under 18 anywhere in California." Sounds like a "BAN" to me.

.

Doesnt sound like a ban, sounds like a restaining order..

[ArieLTruPrincesS]

that does sound crazy

[sbell111]

Doesnt sound like a ban, sounds like a restaining order..It also sounds like something that might not hold up on appeal. Either way it does not stop him from being in the state.

[Phibbles]

Reading all these posts with people like Robo and Phibbles who think that sexually harassing children, and maintaining privacy for abused children is a joke, is a little depresing. But I guess I'll try to turn it around and be glad that they live such worry free lives and they don't know the pain of caring for a child thats gone through them.

My comment was a joke about sexually harrassing children? Really?
I think you may be stretching it a little, no. Perhaps a little? Well, I'll let it go. I can see you are distraught over this thread.

I would suggest though, if a child needs THIS MUCH privacy protection, that the child be relocated to a remote island or wooded area. You take them to any public or private gathering of people, you need to assume they will end up in a photograph or two. Even if the photographer has no intentions of putting them in a photo.

[merryweather20]

You are actually taking the position that one should not ever take a photograph at WDW if there is going to be a random stranger in it? You are further taking the stance that taking a picture that has a random stranger in it is unreasonable, rude, and sick?

Should everyone just leave their cameras at home? After all, there is virtually no way to avoid getting strangers in park photos.You can demand all kinds of things, but you can't enforce those demands. If you demanded that I delete pictures that I took in public areas of WDW, I'd tell you to get bent. If you tried to force your demands, you could find yourself in the pokey.

Nope I'm taking the position that you don't photograph other people's children without asking first. As I said in my previous post a child that needs to be protected will, be wearing a hat, or sunglasses if necessary and there parents going to let them wander into your photographs either... Pretty simple really, if you want someone else's photograph you ask first and at character meetings you wait your turn.

Not sure why you would leave your camera at home. I'm planning on bringing mine, and it can't be too difficult to avoid having strangers in pics, because as I said I looked through mine and I don't have any, except in some indistinguishable crowd shots. If someone told me to get bent after they took a picture of a child I was with, I'd have no problem letting a CM know so that the situation would resolve appropriately.

[PixieDust32]

Too much "to catch a predator"

[dburg30]

If someone told me to get bent after they took a picture of a child I was with, I'd have no problem letting a CM know so that the situation would resolve appropriately.

I wouldnt tell you to get bent, I would just walk away. It would be unwise at that point to start following me or in any way harassing me.. Again this 'demanded the film be given to the person' WHERE did this take place, and I dont mean at a game or anything, WHERE in the world?

[motofox4]

so what if i were going during a really crowded time of the year and i wanted to take a picture of someone i was there with and other people, strangers, whether they be adults/children, whatever, were walking in the background.. am i supposed to not take the picture then because other people's children would be in the picture????? :confused3

[JenniBugInPink]

You are actually taking the position that one should not ever take a photograph at WDW if there is going to be a random stranger in it? You are further taking the stance that taking a picture that has a random stranger in it is unreasonable, rude, and sick?
I think perhaps a vacation at a private compound might be more appropriate for this family and those who share their beliefs. This level of paranoia, even if justified, would seem to make WDW (or DL) a completely joyless place.:sad2:
I would suggest though, if a child needs THIS MUCH privacy protection, that the child be relocated to a remote island or wooded area. You take them to any public or private gathering of people, you need to assume they will end up in a photograph or two. Even if the photographer has no intentions of putting them in a photo.
I agree completely.

[3"Mouse"keteers]

I'm guessing it will have been incase you got a pic of a kid in it
can't take pics of your own kids in swimming pools here incase you get someone elses kid in it
Is that true for disney too? I was really looking forward to getting pics of my son swimming in the Hippety Dippety Pool at Pop Century! :confused3

[PixieDust32]

so what if i were going during a really crowded time of the year and i wanted to take a picture of someone i was there with and other people, strangers, whether they be adults/children, whatever, were walking in the background.. am i supposed to not take the picture then because other people's children would be in the picture????? :confused3

I guess so! That don't make any senses. The're people and kids on almost every picture i took. :rolleyes1

[sbell111]

Nope I'm taking the position that you don't photograph other people's children without asking first. As I said in my previous post a child that needs to be protected will, be wearing a hat, or sunglasses if necessary and there parents going to let them wander into your photographs either... Pretty simple really, if you want someone else's photograph you ask first and at character meetings you wait your turn.There's a bit that you are missing. You see, no one wants that random person in their photos.

Consider a Main Street photo. You have a few options.
Take the picture and move on with your life, even through there are random people in it.
Ask every person within your view if it's OK for them to be in your picture.
Ask every person within your view to leave the area.
Give up taking pictures at WDW.
I'm confident that you can see that neither #2 or #3 are viable. Heck, even if you could heard the local cats out of your picture, others would wander in before you could actually take the picture.

That leaves 1) take the pic and move on with your life or 4) Give up taking pictures.

I choose to take the picture with the knowledge that there will certainly be random strangers in it.
... If someone told me to get bent after they took a picture of a child I was with, I'd have no problem letting a CM know so that the situation would resolve appropriately.Your welcome to let a CM know anything you like. That still doesn't give you any authority over my camera. I'm pretty certain that the CM will tell you the same thing.Too much "to catch a predator"Agreed.

[PixieDust32]

Is that true for disney too? I was really looking forward to getting pics of my son swimming in the Hippety Dippety Pool at Pop Century! :confused3

Please! On our recent trip DH and my girls were swimming and I took tons of pics of them, I didn't see anything about not taking pics of your children any where posted nor anyone told me not to do so, and I also saw many other parents taking pics of their family/children as well, so please!

[motofox4]

yeah, mine too... it's not that i'm trying to get other people in my pictures, in fact i'd love to have just the person/people i want and no one else in them for the "ideal" picture, but you're at Disney World, there are tons of people there, you're bound to get someone or someone else's kid in your pictures!!! If you're not getting other people in them, i'd like to know what time of year you're going so I can go then too!!!!!!!!!! :confused3 :rotfl:

[dburg30]

so what if i were going during a really crowded time of the year and i wanted to take a picture of someone i was there with and other people, strangers, whether they be adults/children, whatever, were walking in the background.. am i supposed to not take the picture then because other people's children would be in the picture????? :confused3

According to some people, yes, you arent supposed to. Now, I know what I would do if I saw a cool picture at WDW.. I would take it. Be it some middle aged fat dude (looks in the mirror.. woops) with a magical look on his face, or a 4 year old girl meeting a real live princess for the first time. Pictures are stories that show emotion. I think that gets overlooked a LOT.

[PixieDust32]

There's a bit that you are missing. You see, no one wants that random person in their photos.

Consider a Main Street photo. You have a few options.
Take the picture and move on with your life, even through there are random people in it.
Ask every person within your view if it's OK for them to be in your picture.
Ask every person within your view to leave the area.
Give up taking pictures at WDW.
I'm confident that you can see that neither #2 or #3 are viable. Heck, even if you could heard the local cats out of your picture, others would wander in before you could actually take the picture.

That leaves 1) take the pic and move on with your life or 4) Give up taking pictures.

I choose to take the picture with the knowledge that there will certainly be random strangers in it.
Your welcome to let a CM know anything you like. That still doesn't give you any authority over my camera. I'm pretty certain that the CM will tell you the same thing.Agreed.


No kidding! I guess if you don't want nobody to see your kids then keep them home and keep in mind that most of the child molesters know their victims and some are related to them.

If I see a person looking (you know the look) at my child or stalking my children, that would be a different issue.

The point here was that only one handler was rude to guest and in my case even the character, we saw many characters and no other handler said anything to anybody about it!

[Lynn5700]

I think if that law really prohibited taking pictures of other people's kids then no one could bring a camera to the parks. But I agree, I think it was probabaly just to prevent the idea of line jumping. I've always thought they should allow a pause so people could get a "just character picture" in. That could take care of 10 people at once. Maybe allow it right before the character is going to leave. Everyone can snap a photo at the same time and then the character can leave.


One of the CMs did that for the characters,it was a good idea :)

I don't know about the rest of the population, but I for one never walk in front of someone else's photo if I can help it.

Several years back I was in line to meet Jasmine. Just as it was my turn, a woman was trying to snap a photo of the princess. Me, being somewhat overly considerate of others at times, stayed back so I wouldn't ruin the woman's picture, much to the chagrin of the character attendant. The CM told me to please go ahead while she told the other woman that if she wanted a picture, she'd need to take it from a distance or else stand in line.

Afterwards, the CM apologized to me and told me that she knew I was just trying to be courteous, but that allowing others to take pictures holds up the line and fewer people get to meet the character as a result.

(Also, I've witnessed on several occasions people who weren't waiting in line asking the next guests to please wait a minute so they can snap a picture -- and then throwing complete tantrums when other people were blocking their shot!)

Just my experiences with it. But like I said, my instance happened probably 5 years ago, so I don't think it's anything new... maybe it just depends on the CM? I seriously doubt it has anything to do with getting other children in the picture.

I think that is why they tell people to get in line so that it doesn't get out of hand.

[PixieDust32]

yeah, mine too... it's not that i'm trying to get other people in my pictures, in fact i'd love to have just the person/people i want and no one else in them for the "ideal" picture, but you're at Disney World, there are tons of people there, you're bound to get someone or someone else's kid in your pictures!!! If you're not getting other people in them, i'd like to know what time of year you're going so I can go then too!!!!!!!!!! :confused3 :rotfl:

Exactly! And what are you going to do, ask them to move out of the way? :rotfl: please, people walk in front of your pictures even when you asked them to please wait. How can I ask the crowd in front of the castle to move because you know I might be a creepy person :rotfl2:

[merryweather20]

There's a bit that you are missing. You see, no one wants that random person in their photos.

Consider a Main Street photo. You have a few options.
Take the picture and move on with your life, even through there are random people in it.
Ask every person within your view if it's OK for them to be in your picture.
Ask every person within your view to leave the area.
Give up taking pictures at WDW.I'm confident that you can see that neither #2 or #3 are viable. Heck, even if you could heard the local cats out of your picture, others would wander in before you could actually take the picture.

That leaves 1) take the pic and move on with your life or 4) Give up taking pictures.

I choose to take the picture with the knowledge that there will certainly be random strangers in it.
Your welcome to let a CM know anything you like. That still doesn't give you any authority over my camera. I'm pretty certain that the CM will tell you the same thing.Agreed.

There is a big difference between taking a wide crowd shot of Main Street or the Castle and taking a photo of a specific child with a character. ;)

I think Disney has made it pretty clear what there position is on people who take pictures of other peoples children without asking. I've heard of people getting escorted out by security and of CM's watching while the person deleted digital pictures. I haven't heard any CM's tell a patron to "get bent". So no I don't agree.

[PixieDust32]

:rolleyes1

[PixieDust32]

:rolleyes1
I agree, people should wait in line if they want a pic with a character, I always do, however if they see the character with nobody next to him why not taking a pic of them, and again in my case, the handler should had asked insted of assuming and yelling at my Mom.

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

I don't know if anyone watched the Steve Wilkos show last week . He had a guy on that has a website to watch and "rate" young girls. His site tells people where to go to see young girls and how to get their pictures and "get close to them". I guess this guy has been banned from the entire state of California and various other places. So as disgusting as it is to think about-freaks are out there. (Not suggesting that is what the OP was doing)

There are sick people in the world. There have always been sick people in the world. There will likely always be sick people in the world. But these people were, are and always will be in the minority. So, to assume that someone who takes pictures of kids they don't know in public are up to know good is ridiculous. This kind of thinking has helped to create this society of fear that we find ourselves in.

I'd expect someone to ask first before taking a picture of my dog for pete sakes. At best taking picturs without asking first is just rude, at worst it is sick.

Are you for real? Why would you care if I took photos of your dog?

Reading all these posts with people like Robo and Phibbles who think that sexually harassing children, and maintaining privacy for abused children is a joke, is a little depresing.

Wow. Those are HUGE allegations. I didn't see anyone here say that sexually harrassing or abusing children is funny. Taking a photo of a child you don't know who is fully clothed in public is NOT sexual harrassment.

Now, I know what I would do if I saw a cool picture at WDW.. I would take it. Be it some middle aged fat dude (looks in the mirror.. woops) with a magical look on his face, or a 4 year old girl meeting a real live princess for the first time. Pictures are stories that show emotion. I think that gets overlooked a LOT.

I too take photos of strangers - kids and adults - in public places. *gasp* I enjoy photography as a hobby. Beautiful or funny candid moments happen all the time to people that I don't know. I like to capture them on film. If someone told me to stop taking their photos, I would. (This has never happened.) Otherwise, I'll snap away. I call it art not pedophelia.

To get back on topic . . .

I think that the OP was close enough that the CM felt she could disrupt som guests' interaction with the characters. No one might have been with Donald right at that moment but how did the CM know how long the OP was planning to stand their taking shots? Likely, character handlers are instructed to keep those not in line away from the characters. I can understand this. They are trying to offer a certain personal experience at these meet 'n greets.

[TDC Nala]

I can't think of any reason why anyone would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public areas of a theme park.

Why is a photo with a character any different from someone taking a picture of the castle, and in this picture is an entire family getting their photo shot by photopass people?

The rule, if there is one, must have to do with 1) the characters, 2) the crowds, 3) the fact that a family might feel their intimate moment with a character is being usurped by someone else. Legal liability isn't likely to be implied unless the photographer then either publicly displays the photograph in a way that embarrasses the people in it, or publicly displays the photograph for profit.

Because the CMs appear to be prohibiting those outside the line from taking photos of the characters at meet and greets even when there are no people with them, it's got to be some other reason than the privacy of guests.

[Texas Rob]

I understand where EVERYONE is coming from really I do! However, I also appreciate Disney and its CMs working toward creating the most secure and safe place for my family to come that is possible. That may mean that I have to give up a few comfortable features....but hey I am okay with that personally.

In my humble opinion....I think we should be allowed to take photos as long as someone is not trying to take a picture of a child intentionally that does not belong to their party.

Now how do you regulate this? Who knows....thanks DISNEY!

[merryweather20]

Are you for real? Why would you care if I took photos of your dog?



Wow. Those are HUGE allegations. I didn't see anyone here say that sexually harrassing or abusing children is funny. Taking a photo of a child you don't know who is fully clothed in public is NOT sexual harrassment.



Seriously? Okay someone walks up to you and your dog for no reason and starts taking pictures out of the blue. You don't think this would make you feel weird and creeped out? If you wanted a pic wouldn't you say something like hey cool dog I used to have a Lab myself, can I take her pic?

As for your second comment scroll yourself back a few pages those two posters were making light of wanting to protect abused children's privacy. I mentioned the kids would wear hats and sunglasses so as not to worry about showing up in crowd shots, and to flag a CM in order to avoid pictures at the rides with cameras and they turned it into a joke. All of a sudden the kids need to be in a witness protection program.

[MonicaInFlorida]

Seriously? Okay someone walks up to you and your dog for no reason and starts taking pictures out of the blue. You don't think this would make you feel weird and creeped out? If you wanted a pic wouldn't you say something like hey cool dog I used to have a Lab myself, can I take her pic?

As for your second comment scroll yourself back a few pages those two posters were making light of wanting to protect abused children's privacy. I mentioned the kids would wear hats and sunglasses so as not to worry about showing up in crowd shots, and to flag a CM in order to avoid pictures at the rides with cameras and they turned it into a joke. All of a sudden the kids need to be in a witness protection program.

Sounds to me like your hysterical behavior would scar the poor kids even more, reiterating the idea that they're not safe, EVER, ANYWHERE!! At worst, it's scary to them and would make them feel even more vulnerable and insecure, and at best you're embarrassing the heck out of them.

And while you're freaking out about some innocent schmo who just wanted a candid of a character and didn't give two flips about your kids, who's watching those kids while you're running around trying to find a cast member?

Protecting kids is one thing, but taking it to a bizarrely extreme level at a THEME PARK is just nuts.

[TDC Nala]

I would say that in the opinion of many, having the children wear disguises and asking to turn off the ride cameras seems extreme (although you may have reasons as to why you believe it is necessary for your party to do so), as does putting the onus on each individual photographer to attempt to get shots of attractions in public theme parks without including other persons in the shot because you might be violating their privacy in ways you can't even imagine.

Only you know what your requirements are for your family or those in your charge, and you may of course do whatever is reasonable to maintain your own privacy without violating that of anyone else.

[dburg30]

I think Disney has made it pretty clear what there position is on people who take pictures of other peoples children without asking. I've heard of people getting escorted out by security and of CM's watching while the person deleted digital pictures. I haven't heard any CM's tell a patron to "get bent". So no I don't agree.

I call 100% total BS on this (and thanks for dodging the question of where this taking the film incident happened). IF this ever happened it was because they were asked to stop and continued, or they were taking pictures where they werent supposed to be (off stage or some behind the scenes). I have yet to see, in writing, any photography being prohibited UNLESS CLEARLY STATED. If you can prove that they are making people delete them because of one picture, and not some much larger issue, I'll say I'm sorry I doubted you. Oh btw.. a link to a forum or anything like that doesnt count. If it was a newspaper with a full story or something like that, in the USA, I'd consider reading it.

[dburg30]

Seriously? Okay someone walks up to you and your dog for no reason and starts taking pictures out of the blue. You don't think this would make you feel weird and creeped out? If you wanted a pic wouldn't you say something like hey cool dog I used to have a Lab myself, can I take her pic?



Most people would ask, myself included, but that's different then some random picture. These people arent 'walking up to you' they are taking pictures from a distance.
But also, you dont have to ask to take a picture either. It just nice to do so. If you walked up to me and started taking my picture I may put my hands up and ask what you were doing, but if you did it, then walked away, it really wouldnt bother me. I would probably go check to make sure I didnt have a big booger or something hanging out though :lmao:

[merryweather20]

Sounds to me like your hysterical behavior would scar the poor kids even more, reiterating the idea that they're not safe, EVER, ANYWHERE!! At worst, it's scary to them and would make them feel even more vulnerable and insecure, and at best you're embarrassing the heck out of them.

And while you're freaking out about some innocent schmo who just wanted a candid of a character and didn't give two flips about your kids, who's watching those kids while you're running around trying to find a cast member?

Protecting kids is one thing, but taking it to a bizarrely extreme level at a THEME PARK is just nuts.

I'm guessing you didn't read to much of the thread. This is certainly not hhysterics. Many foster children simply cannot be photographed, so it makes ssense to make these simple precautions so they can enjoy WDW.

[PrincessKsMom]

Seriously? Okay someone walks up to you and your dog for no reason and starts taking pictures out of the blue. You don't think this would make you feel weird and creeped out? If you wanted a pic wouldn't you say something like hey cool dog I used to have a Lab myself, can I take her pic?

No one is talking about a complete stranger walking up to you and snapping away. We're talking about people standing off to the side taking pictures of the characters, NOT your children. With zoom lenses today, they could completely cut your kids of the picture, but you wouldn't know without looking at the pictures.

This is really beginning to sound like Michael Jackson and his kids with hats and glasses, and blankets thrown over their heads. If you have someone stalking you or your kids, Disney is probably NOT the best place to be. Sounds like you could potentially do more HARM than good in making these children completely paranoid that EVERYONE is out to get them. This is what famous people's children must feel like but you know what, in that instance, people are trying to get their pictures. In your instance -- nope.

[merryweather20]

I call 100% total BS on this (and thanks for dodging the question of where this taking the film incident happened). IF this ever happened it was because they were asked to stop and continued, or they were taking pictures where they werent supposed to be (off stage or some behind the scenes). I have yet to see, in writing, any photography being prohibited UNLESS CLEARLY STATED. If you can prove that they are making people delete them because of one picture, and not some much larger issue, I'll say I'm sorry I doubted you. Oh btw.. a link to a forum or anything like that doesnt count. If it was a newspaper with a full story or something like that, in the USA, I'd consider reading it.

I wasn't trying to dodge anything its just none of your business. When my Uncle called the police on the gentleman it wasn't in WDW if thats what you wanted to know?

You can peruse the forum yourself. I'm not sure why someone gettin booted by security would make a newspaper article? I assume in a place like WDW it would happen a couple of times a day just due to its size.

[inkkognito]

Whew! I see that reality and rationality have taken a little vacation from this thread.

In reading it, Michael Jackson and his veiled, blanket-covered, surgically masked children keeps coming to my mind. I suppose it could be argued that he is protecting them because he is a public figure, but a part of me can't help but wonder if it's also because he knows a little too well about predators. Overreactions are always suspect in my mind.

Nuff said.

[merryweather20]

No one is talking about a complete stranger walking up to you and snapping away. We're talking about people standing off to the side taking pictures of the characters, NOT your children. With zoom lenses today, they could completely cut your kids of the picture, but you wouldn't know without looking at the pictures.

This is really beginning to sound like Michael Jackson and his kids with hats and glasses, and blankets thrown over their heads. If you have someone stalking you or your kids, Disney is probably NOT the best place to be. Sounds like you could potentially do more HARM than good in making these children completely paranoid that EVERYONE is out to get them. This is what famous people's children must feel like but you know what, in that instance, people are trying to get their pictures. In your instance -- nope.


No, no my response was to someone who questioned why I would have a problem taking pictures of my dog, and I was just calling their bluff, because I was sure they would think it was strange to :rotfl:

[dburg30]

I'm guessing you didn't read to much of the thread. This is certainly not hhysterics. Many foster children simply cannot be photographed, so it makes ssense to make these simple precautions so they can enjoy WDW.


I promise you, that you can not keep your kids from getting their picture taken at disney, or anywhere else. Put them in disguises if you want, but if someone knows who they are, it's really not going to matter how you dress them up

[blabbermouth]

I'm so off topic, but I'll continue anyway... to the whole foster child argument...

Don't you have legal right to care for these children? Or if their parents came up and said 'Oh hey, here's my kid in Florida, as I found out from some random person posting random to the minute vacation photos online, I'm just going to take him/her back now, thanks' and walked off, that you wouldn't be able to control that? And isn't there a restraining order against the parents if this is something that is actually likely to happen?

:confused: I swear all Canadians aren't this confusing, I don't even really understand the reason why they can't have photos taken... I have foster children in my family even. So ridiculous! Ok, I'm done now.

[blabbermouth]

I promise you, that you can not keep your kids from getting their picture taken at disney, or anywhere else. Put them in disguises if you want, but if someone knows who they are, it's really not going to matter how you dress them up

I was going to say the same thing. If some child you know is twenty, thirty feet away from you wearing a hat and sunglasses, are you saying you wouldn't recognize them? Really?

[PrincessKsMom]

Merryweather20:

What's even more scary is that I just noticed your from Ontario. Someone is following you from Ontario (Canada, I presume) to Florida?

[PixieDust32]

Lol!!

[madcoco]

Whew! I see that reality and rationality have taken a little vacation from this thread.
Ditto.

[merryweather20]

I promise you, that you can not keep your kids from getting their picture taken at disney, or anywhere else. Put them in disguises if you want, but if someone knows who they are, it's really not going to matter how you dress them up

Goodness, I don't know where you are coming from. These aren't disguises don't most people wear hats or sunglasses in the parks? The children aren't in the witness protection problem, but the state will expect that reasonable precautions are taken to respect their mandates.

So when such kids are taken to the parks or other attractions their Foster parents will indeed take the little precautions in previous posts so they are safe. Its justl not Okay to take pics of other kids with a character. It just isn't, you shouldn't want or need the photo for starters and in the worst case a kid is just in line for an autograph, and their foster parents can't even take a photo of them :guilty: .
Since their Foster parents can't take one, why do so many people feel entitled?

If you want a photo to test the settings on the camera or because you had a nice time with the family in line, then just ask. It seems like a no brainer to me.

[melancholywings]

You most certainly can demand the film, or demand that the pictures be deleted. Where is this law that says I can't?

Pictures are private property, you have no legal right to demand some one's personal property. Sure you can ask for it, you can ask for the moon if you wanted too, but it doesn't mean you have any legal rights to it. And if you take the film and destroy it you can get in trouble for destruction of private property.

If it's a serious issue it's best to let the law handle it.

[dburg30]

I wasn't trying to dodge anything its just none of your business. When my Uncle called the police on the gentleman it wasn't in WDW if thats what you wanted to know?
.

OK whatever, did this said incident take place in the US?

[Phibbles]

First, I did not say foster children should be in witness protection. You may want to take a step back and calm down. I was comparing your description of shielding the kids from random possible photographs to the things people in witness protection might do to stay hidden.

Second, if I had a responsibility for a child that needs to be hidden to the extent they can't be accidentally photographed; I would not get on a character meet/greet line. Seems too risky to me.

Third, I don't think anyone on this thread gives a carp about the hat and glasses the foster kids might wear to avoid being identified. Knock yourself out. Where a burka(sp?) for all I care. Then it would be real hard for the kid to be recognized by someone.

[Todd&Copper]

I don't know that it is so much about getting someone else's kid in the picture (b/c, to be perfectly honest, it is impossible to not get someone else's family in at least a few photos at WDW), and more with line-jumping. I know you only wanted a picture of Donald and not time with him, but letting you get your shot starts down a slippery slope. I will only take about 30 seconds to pose and have a photo with Donald - why should I wait on line with kids who want autographs. Little Billy only wants a quick autograph and photo, not like little baby Jenny who is only 2 and is looking forward to a longer period of interacting with Donald b/c he is her favorite character.
You could have waited in line with the other people who wanted a Donald photo and when your turn was up, you could have just snapped a shot of Donald with no one else in the photo.

[sbell111]

:confused: I swear all Canadians aren't this confusing, I don't even really understand the reason why they can't have photos taken... Vampires.

[Phibbles]

Vampires.

Now that is funny! :rotfl2:

[merryweather20]

Pictures are private property, you have no legal right to demand some one's personal property. Sure you can ask for it, you can ask for the moon if you wanted too, but it doesn't mean you have any legal rights to it. And if you take the film and destroy it you can get in trouble for destruction of private property.

If it's a serious issue it's best to let the law handle it.

Exactly

[blabbermouth]

Vampires.

If she just woulda said vampire foster children in the first place everything would have made sense! :rotfl2:

[dburg30]

Pictures are private property, you have no legal right to demand some one's personal property. Sure you can ask for it, you can ask for the moon if you wanted too, but it doesn't mean you have any legal rights to it. And if you take the film and destroy it you can get in trouble for destruction of private property.

If it's a serious issue it's best to let the law handle it.

Exactly


Finally, you are starting to see that you just cant take someones film just because they took a picture.. Thanks for finally admitting that..

[sbell111]

... The children aren't in the witness protection problem, but the state will expect that reasonable precautions are taken to respect their mandates.I thought Canada had provinces. You learn something new every day. :rolleyes1 ... Its justl not Okay to take pics of other kids with a character.Even if the 'state' of Ontario deemed it to be a danger for the children to have their pictures taken, they would not have the authority to forbid some person in the state of Florida from taking a picture that happened to have the child in it.... Since their Foster parents can't take one, why do so many people feel entitled?That sounds like something for you to take up with the 'state' of Ontario.

BTW, how did you go about getting permission to take these foster children across international lines? It's also too bad that the 'state' of Ontario didn't have the foresight to hold onto the parents passport while you were out of the country, if they are such a danger. That would seem like a simple solution to your problem.

[merryweather20]

I give up go up to strangers and take pictures of them, be as rude as you like :confused3

Sooner or later you'll tick off the wrong person and then I shall know you by your black eyes.

It continues to floor me that so many people think its an important right to take pictures of strangers children. Can't say I'd want pictures of strange children myself... but to each his own.

I'll tell my Uncle to watch out for the people in the black eyes. They missed the day in Kindergarten where they taught you it was polite to ask permission and they met up with a guy who missed the day where they taught everybody not to fight.

[LadyDuchess]

"State" can also mean country.

[Sleeping Becca]

I'm guessing you didn't read to much of the thread. This is certainly not hhysterics. Many foster children simply cannot be photographed, so it makes ssense to make these simple precautions so they can enjoy WDW.
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. What is the reason that the foster children can not be photographed and they have to wear hats and sunglasses in public while on vacation?

I agree with others that no harm is done from someone taking a picture.

[Robo]

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. What is the reason that the foster children can not be photographed and they have to wear hats and sunglasses in public while on vacation?

The way I piece it together, If they are photographed standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk, that may be one remaining piece of the puzzle needed for Suddam's (still-in-hiding) rebel forces to locate the Canadian vampire offspring and send them a threatening candy-gram via the care of Donald Duck's CM handler.

[sbell111]

"State" can also mean country.Sure, but a federal magistrate wouldn't have made the order in question, if anyone did.

[dburg30]

And if people are allowed to use fastpasses past their times, I'm allowed to take pictures of whoever I want!!!:mad:

[dburg30]

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. What is the reason that the foster children can not be photographed and they have to wear hats and sunglasses in public while on vacation?


OH CRAP, I just figured it out!!! This must be Brad and Angelina's kids!!!

[melancholywings]

How do you protect the kids from the traffic camera's?

[LadyDuchess]

I was just pointing out that she was referring to the country, NOT insinuating that Canada has states like the U.S. Therefore the constant reference to the "'state' of Ontario" didn't make you look witty or her unintelligent.

[puzzles]

There's a bit that you are missing. You see, no one wants that random person in their photos.

Consider a Main Street photo. You have a few options.
Take the picture and move on with your life, even through there are random people in it.
Ask every person within your view if it's OK for them to be in your picture.
Ask every person within your view to leave the area.
Give up taking pictures at WDW.
I'm confident that you can see that neither #2 or #3 are viable. Heck, even if you could heard the local cats out of your picture, others would wander in before you could actually take the picture.

That leaves 1) take the pic and move on with your life or 4) Give up taking pictures.

I choose to take the picture with the knowledge that there will certainly be random strangers in it.

I completely agree!!! If some random people end up in my photos - who cares. If my kids are in someone else's photos - who cares.

[Sleeping Becca]

There was a thread on these boards a while back, wondering if anyone had recognized someone or seen themselves in the background of someone else's vacation photos posted on the boards.

BTW

Robo and dburg30 you guys are so bad!!!!! :stir:

:rotfl2:

[kakiegirl]

I am a very over protective mother. It was very hard from me to let my DD 9 go on a pirate cruise this summer at Disney World because I am such a worrier. Even being as overprotective as I am I would never go to Disney and not expect my child or any of us to be in someone else's pictures. I know in almost all our pictures someone else is in the background. At Star Wars weekend we did take some pictures outside of the line of the Disney Characters in their Star Wars Costumes. Now we did it between people going up to pose but again there were unkown people in the background. I doubt if some pervert wants a picture of your child they are going to be obvious about it they will probably try to hide it. With camera phones and technology today it someone wants a picture of your child they will probably take it. I think that is one of those things you have to file away under don't worry about something you can't do anything about. If DD 9 was getting her picture took with a character and someone excited to see that character wanted to take a picture without standing in line I honestly would have no problem with it. I think previous posters were not trying to make light of children being abused or harmed they were just stating their opinon that there is really no way to harm a child by taking their picture. I mean it is awful to imagine but if someone takes your child's picture and posts it on some website you will probably never even know about it.

Also, we always take pictures and sometimes videos at the pool at Disney and no one has every said anything to us. I have never heard you can't take pool pictures at Disney?

[LilGMom]

People are welcome to take pictures of my kids... they don't get much stranger than my two. :)

Wonder if I should Photoshop Yoda's head onto all of the kids doing Jedi Training that aren't my child before I print the picture out? :yoda:

[Phibbles]

And now she is sending me PMs on the issue. Oh boy.

:3dglasses

[missj1975]

Perhaps I just didn't get the 'child stealer' feature on my camera. It seems like I'm finding something missing with my 20d almost every day.No judge in this country is going to take the position that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in any public, non-restroom area at WDW.

Sbell :worship:

"One thing about living in Santa Carla I never could stomach, all the damn vampires."

[missj1975]

I have known lots of foster children and I have never heard that I wasn't allowed to take photos of them. Is that a Canadian thing?

Merryweather20, I think you are missing most everyone's point that they don't intentional take photos of other people's kids. It is just hard not to have random kids in the background at a place swarming with kids.

[LilGMom]

"One thing about living in Santa Carla I never could stomach, all the damn vampires."

Great movie and wonderful soundtrack! :thumbsup2

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee73/LilGMom/180px-Vampire_Smiley.png

[Taterella]

Merryweather, I think you should realize that the children you are speaking of have a very unusual circumstance, that it isn't even the norm for foster children, and that your perspective is therefore skewed. No one here is out to hurt anyone by photographing them.

[Phibbles]

No one here is out to hurt anyone by photographing them.

Unless they are vampire children. Then we want them all on a stake.

[JESW]

I still can't figure out why foster children can't be photographed? :confused3
How could taking a picture of them with a Disney character be harmful to them? Even if there are people from their past life who might bring them harm, how would a photograph help them? I really can't understand. I would think that the foster parents would want photos of them. My brother and his wife have 4 foster kids in their house right now and they take pictures of them ALL the time! They are on vacation right now (not Disney) and I am sure they will come home with a ton of photos. These kids have very rough birth parents and need to be kept away from them - but I still can't figure out how they could hurt them if they saw pictures?? :confused3

Jill

[dburg30]

And now she is sending me PMs on the issue. Oh boy.

:3dglasses


:thumbsup2 CC me!!! and I'll post it one a website! lol

[inkkognito]

Excerpt from the Paranoid Parent's Guide to WDW, coming from "To Catch a Predator Books" in 2009:

Proper WDW attire for children:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_anQnlU5D4sM/RdxJfAbc14I/AAAAAAAAAQo/ax5J7hx4fr4/s400/veil10.jpg

(That one girl looks like she tried to make Mickey ears with her headpiece!)

[sbell111]

I was just pointing out that she was referring to the country, NOT insinuating that Canada has states like the U.S. Therefore the constant reference to the "'state' of Ontario" didn't make you look witty or her unintelligent.I think that you are ignoring one other option.

[Emagine]

well here is my persmission to take photos of my kids if for the right reasons, just please do not post it with glory if my eldest is digging in his nose for gold just as hard as he can cause as much as I try to curb this new habit he wont stop!!!

[bullcat_02]

This upsets me greatly. As a 24 year old female that is going on her first solo trip soon, I really don't want to stand in lines just to get pictures of characters. I have no interest this time around of having myself ruin pictures with characters. And I do understand that there are pedos out there that might like little children but I think Disney is taking this a little too far. Just my two cents.

[Robo]

This upsets me greatly. As a 24 year old female that is going on her first solo trip soon, I really don't want to stand in lines just to get pictures of characters. I have no interest this time around of having myself ruin pictures with characters. And I do understand that there are pedos out there that might like little children but I think Disney is taking this a little too far. Just my two cents.

No need to be upset...

I wouldn't say that "Disney" is doing anything like is described in many of the more "agitated" posts in this thread.

You'll be able to take lots of character pix.

Have a magical trip!
:wizard:

[livie1205]

;) please come up to me and ask me to delete my photos because your kid MAY or MAY not be in the background.......I promise you will not get to far on this...My dh is a police officer here in good ol florida and I promise you you CAN NOT go up to someone in wdw and tell them they have to delete their photos! I promise you a cm CAN NOT demand you to hand over your camera! It will never happen....as far as the black eyes are concerned, they are more than happy to TRY, but NO ONE will or has the right to make you delete your vacation photos UNLESS you are taking them in forbidden areas or taking photos of naked or semi naked children (and no that is not bathing suits at the pool) UNLESS you are a reg sex offender....GOOD LUCK WITH THAT THOUGH.

[MonicaInFlorida]

The way I piece it together, If they are photographed standing in front of the Turkey Leg kiosk, that may be one remaining piece of the puzzle needed for Suddam's (still-in-hiding) rebel forces to locate the Canadian vampire offspring and send them a threatening candy-gram via the care of Donald Duck's CM handler.

We're through the looking-glass here, people!

[Tio Marco]

If I was not allowed to have strangers in my vacation photos, I don't think I would have many photos.

LOL....so true. In fact, the ONLY character pics i have are with other people's kids in them. No way am i standing in those lines....

[teach22180]

Okay, as a foster mom for over 10 years, I've never been asked not to take pictures of my girls. I had to give you the first hand info. I don't post pictures of them, but that's because they are teens and young adults, and they would not be happy with me! :rotfl: Now, when years ago, a birth mom was living in my community, I was on alert in public places just because meeting up with her wouldn't have been a happy scene. It's all about common sense.

For the solo PP, we got a GREAT picture of Pooh and Tigger where they were greeting kids just by timing it as one child was leaving and another was coming up. That's what I like about digital cameras, we can take lots of pictures and not worry about them being perfect. I just deleted the bad ones.

[JenniBugInPink]

Where a burka(sp?) for all I care. Then it would be real hard for the kid to be recognized by someone.
I think this is an excellent solution, as long as it's applied to both sexes of course. I hated that concept long before we actually invaded Afghanistan, but now it makes perfect sense. We don't have to hide many of our foster children down here in Tennessee, but if we do, we generally wouldn't worry about them being in total strangers' pictures. It's the family members we worry about - not the strangers. And I just want to say that this has been one of the STRANGEST threads I've ever read here...:upsidedow :sad2: :upsidedow

[marivaid]

BTW, how did you go about getting permission to take these foster children across international lines? It's also too bad that the 'state' of Ontario didn't have the foresight to hold onto the parents passport while you were out of the country, if they are such a danger. That would seem like a simple solution to your problem.

I've been wondering the same thing. One of my friends lost her kids for almost a year, they were taken into foster care (she was living near Toronto then). The foster parents were not even allowed to drive them to their grandmother's 50 miles away, so cross the border with foster kids ?? HIGHLY unlikely, especially since those kids apparently are in such danger they can't have their photo taken.
Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I take pictures of the characters all the time without standing in line. I just stand a ways off and use my zoom. I just get the character. I wait until the child walks away. I know the CMs are touchy about this, but I'm not standing in line to take a picture of the character by him or herself. I certainly don't want pictures of other peoples' kids.

Personally, I think it is a total over reaction. I guess it is possible that someone bad could take a picture of a kid at WDW. That could happen anywhere. Most people just want a picture of the character.

I do it all the time too. I stand far away and zoom in, so only the character is in my pics or maybe sometimes the top of a kid's head. I don't WANT somebody's kid in my pics.

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Seriously? Okay someone walks up to you and your dog for no reason and starts taking pictures out of the blue. You don't think this would make you feel weird and creeped out? If you wanted a pic wouldn't you say something like hey cool dog I used to have a Lab myself, can I take her pic?

As for your second comment scroll yourself back a few pages those two posters were making light of wanting to protect abused children's privacy. I mentioned the kids would wear hats and sunglasses so as not to worry about showing up in crowd shots, and to flag a CM in order to avoid pictures at the rides with cameras and they turned it into a joke. All of a sudden the kids need to be in a witness protection program.

I'm not talking about walking up to you and getting in your face with a camera and not saying a word. I'm not sure it would be "rude" but it would be strange. I'm talking about me sitting on a park bench and noticing a really cute dog across the way, taking my expensive camera and zooming in on him for a couple of pics. It's pretty hard to ask for permission first in the case of candid shots. That's what makes them...well...candid.

I've read the whole thread and NOBODY ever made fun of abused children. They were making fun of you overreacting to the situation.

I thought Canada had provinces. You learn something new every day. :rolleyes1 Even if the 'state' of Ontario deemed it to be a danger for the children . . .

I know someone pointed this out already but there are other definitions of "state" besides divisions of a country.

Can't say I'd want pictures of strange children myself... but to each his own.

Because some of us enjoy photography - capturing life's beautiful, funny, bizarre, etc. moments on film. What's so confusing about that? And furthermore, we don't need to justify why. It's not against the law.

I have known lots of foster children and I have never heard that I wasn't allowed to take photos of them. Is that a Canadian thing?

No. It's not a Canadian thing. I'm quite familiar with our foster system, having a job that requires such knowledge, and I can't tell you what that poster is going on about.

[merryweather20]

I've read the whole thread and NOBODY ever made fun of abused children. They were making fun of you overreacting to the situation.



Where is the overreacting exactly, my post state simple facts... I'm not the one who overreacted and claimed I said that no one could take wide crowd shots, or claimed that simple things (such as wearing a hat a sunglasses and avoiding being on stage) that a family faced with such problems were "hysterics", or liken them to disguises, or the witness protection program. I'm not the one who started making fun of abused children and calling them vampires.

Nope simple facts, you should ask before you take a picture of someone (such as when they ore posed with a character). To do so is simple and curteous. To refuse? At best its rude at worst, there is a very scary, and unfortunate reason to why they cannot have their picture taken.

[mickeyluv'r]

okay....well...I'm just going to say that maye some posters on this thread are not distinguishing between TAKING a picture for personal use and PUBLISHING a picture. Those two things are very different. Taking a picture of a minor in a public place (aside from bathrooms and the like) is perfectly legal. PUBLISHING those photos is not.

[NYDisneyKid]

Lets reverse this 180º. This is a LONG shot, this is about you being told by a CM not being able to take photos of someone elses kids at Disney but I'll bet there are ADULTS out there who don't like being photograghed either. I just wonder what a CM would do if you told them "hey,tell that person not to take a picture if I'm gonna be in the backround". I guarantee you the CM will say "tough luck buddy". ºOº

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Where is the overreacting exactly, my post state simple facts... I'm not the one who overreacted and claimed I said that no one could take wide crowd shots, or claimed that simple things (such as wearing a hat a sunglasses and avoiding being on stage) that a family faced with such problems were "hysterics", or liken them to disguises, or the witness protection program. I'm not the one who started making fun of abused children and calling them vampires.

Nope simple facts, you should ask before you take a picture of someone (such as when they ore posed with a character). To do so is simple and curteous. To refuse? At best its rude at worst, there is a very scary, and unfortunate reason to why they cannot have their picture taken.

Some people think that telling a CM to turn off a camera which takes riders photos on certain attractions is overreacting. You don't have to agree.

Once again, nobody is making fun of abused children. THEY ARE MAKING FUN OF YOU!!

Just because you think people should ask to take photos doesn't make it fact. That's a matter of opinion. I don't think I should have to ask to take anyone's photo in public from a distance and I wouldn't expect other people to ask me either.

[zefyr]

Some people think that telling a CM to turn off a camera which takes riders photos on certain attractions is overreacting. You don't have to agree.



I read this whole thread and the 'turn of the ride's photo' is really odd and I do think overreacting. I can't imagine CMs turning off the ride photo for someone who says 'sorry my foster kids can't have their picture taken.' Why should that one group mean that everyone else riding with them loses out on a photo opportunity? The only alternative would be to have the foster family ride in their own vehicle, but I can't see this happening either (especially during the busy season). Imagine RnRC having one huge limo with one family in it...that would look sooooo out of place.

Anyway, to get back to the OP, I think you weren't allowed to photograph Donald for crowd control reasons. Last year I waited in line to take photos of the characters by themselves and had a little kid run up to the character before I could take the shot. The mother was about to take the photo of her kid (even though neither waited in line). Another experience was that I went on the opposite side of where Mater and Lightning McQueen were (didn't even see the lines) and took a photo of just the cars. A CM told me I couldn't because the cars were getting ready to move. So sometimes it's for crowd control and sometimes for your own 'safety.'

[all4disney98]

Also, it seems based on this thread that a lot of people ARE concerned about strangers getting pictures of their children. So I wonder: how many of those concerned have posted "cute" pictures of their children on Disboards or somewhere else? Just because someone didn't snap the photo themselves doesn't mean they can't do weird creepy things with images they saved to their desktop off a website.

You are absolutely right and I for one can say that I have never posted ANY pictures on my family, or anyone else for that matter, anywhere for that exact reason. If we don't protect our children, who will? Some people might think that is extreme, however, who I want to see or have pictures of my children will see them. You never know what people are going to do to the images etc. and I am not comfortable with just anybody having access to the kids pics.

[all4disney98]

According to some people, yes, you arent supposed to. Now, I know what I would do if I saw a cool picture at WDW.. I would take it. Be it some middle aged fat dude (looks in the mirror.. woops) with a magical look on his face, or a 4 year old girl meeting a real live princess for the first time. Pictures are stories that show emotion. I think that gets overlooked a LOT.


I have read a few people on this thread that have said that they do this because they enjoy photography etc. and this is where I have a problem. It is one thing to be in a picture by mistake - crowds in the background, someone walking through etc. But to specifically take a picture of a stranger, a child especially, is not right. I truly feel you do not have the right to do that without first asking permission. I am sure you love photography and take wonderful pictures, but it creeps me out that there are strangers out there are watching my daughter's first moments with Cinderella and feel that they should take a picture to capture the moment for themselves.

No flames or being mean please. This is just my opinion, which everyone is allowed to have.:hippie:

[all4disney98]

Unless they are vampire children. Then we want them all on a stake.

But can vampires be photographed???

[kayla87]

I wondered why this thread had gotten so long. I almost regret looking to find out! :eek:

DH and I also have a policy of no personal photos on things like Dis. We do have a personal website, but we can monitor who visits that. I have had the misfortune of working with someone who became a convicted sex offender, and I KNOW that people will save pictures they find on the internet. I would never post a picture of my child at the pool on these boards as I've seen others do.

That being said, I guess I have a hard time understanding what could possibly lead a family to walk around in hats and sunglasses and make a huge deal about not being photographed. I agree with PPs; that adds to the paranoia, and if a child was really harmed that badly, reactions like that won't help heal them.

[mom2minniemouse]

Once again, nobody is making fun of abused children. THEY ARE MAKING FUN OF YOU!!

:rotfl2:

[jillyb]

Nope I'm taking the position that you don't photograph other people's children without asking first. As I said in my previous post a child that needs to be protected will, be wearing a hat, or sunglasses if necessary and there parents going to let them wander into your photographs either... Pretty simple really, if you want someone else's photograph you ask first and at character meetings you wait your turn.

Not sure why you would leave your camera at home. I'm planning on bringing mine, and it can't be too difficult to avoid having strangers in pics, because as I said I looked through mine and I don't have any, except in some indistinguishable crowd shots. If someone told me to get bent after they took a picture of a child I was with, I'd have no problem letting a CM know so that the situation would resolve appropriately.

I think I've figured this out....they're Michael Jackson's children.

[srwarden1928]

Thats horrible. DW did exactly what you wanted to do SEVERAL times in March. Lots of people just want a picture of the character. It is so sad that in these times some people feel that they have to be so protective of their children that they rob innocent people of part of the magic of Disney.

BTW I just want to express my sympathy to the OP re the original post. I will NOT be reading this thread again, so if you dont agree with me, I suggest you just ignore me.

[jillyb]

I have known lots of foster children and I have never heard that I wasn't allowed to take photos of them. Is that a Canadian thing?

Actually it's not just a Canadian thing. I live in NC and I have a friend that has a foster child and she is not allowed to take pictures of the child. I don't know the reasoning for it but that's what she has been told.

[Jubilee]

Yep, this explains why my sister and brother got in trouble for taking pics of my daughter through the window at character connection... they said "that's my niece" in there after they got yelled at and then the CM said, "ohhh ok!"

[snowmouse]

Paparazzi make a living of taking people's photos when they don't want them to, their children too. I'm sure all of those celebrities will be thrilled to find out they just have to tell them to delete the photos or hand over the film! I don't know why this important information wasn't made available sooner! Brad and Angelina rejoice, all you have to do is SAY NO!!!

[sunnydoozer]

I think I've figured this out....they're Michael Jackson's children.


Oh yeah! Thats just nuts! I can't imagine someone wearing a hat or sunglasses in sunny Florida. That other poster is a nut, I bet she puts sunscreen on the kiddos too! How awful!

This is a new low for the Dis I think, severely abused children are being called names. Wow guys, just wow.

[Marshel]

I can understand that parents could become creeped out about a stranger taking pictures of their children; but there's a certain price you have to pay for living in a free society, people are going to do certain things that you are not going to like. I take pictures of characters all the time, I try to catch them in between guests, but sometimes you just don't time it quite perfectly enough. Some people are a little too eager to take away other's freedoms in the name of their own sense of security, imho. Then again, I could be wrong:scared1:

[Diznygrl]

If Disney prohibits people from taking side photos of characters for the purpose of "protecting children", then why would this streetmosphere show at MGM ENCOURAGE group photos filled with total strangers (children included) such as this one?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/Dznygrl99/DSC_0440.jpg

My brother took this last December when my mom was one of the "beautiful ladies" pulled out of the audience for the photo op. I can tell you that there were cameras going off like CRAZY for this. Was there anyone around freaking out about people not having "permission" to take their child's picture? No.

I'm more inclined to believe that the no side photos thing is merely a crowd control issue and a matter of "fairness".

[Robo]

If Disney prohibits people from taking side photos of characters for the purpose of "protecting children", then why would this streetmosphere show at MGM ENCOURAGE group photos filled with total strangers (children included) such as this one?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/Dznygrl99/DSC_0440.jpg

My brother took this last December when my mom was one of the "beautiful ladies" pulled out of the audience for the photo op. I can tell you that there were cameras going off like CRAZY for this. Was there anyone around freaking out about people not having "permission" to take their child's picture? No.

I'm more inclined to believe that the no side photos thing is merely a crowd control issue and a matter of "fairness".


AND any kind of audience participation situation at WDW.

Kids pulled into parading around the arena stage in Festival of the Lion King-Photos and Videotaping are encouraged.

The (now closed) Sword in the Stone "Temporary Ruler of the Realm" ceremony in front of the carousel at MK. Kids were chosen to pull out the sword... with guest's cameras snapping away.

Kids chosen to participate on-stage at Hoop Dee Doo Revue (And, as I recall, at the
Spirit of Aloha Dinner Show at Polynesian Resort.)
Cameras shooting from the audience in full force.

[SurfinTX]

This all comes down to being polite I think.

If I happen to walk by and catch a funny moment, whether it is you falling down into some mud or an Ice Cream cone stuck to your kids head, I'm going to snap a pic. I might say Awww or How cute...and then move on.

If I don't know you at all and continue following you snapping pics then that is rude in my opinion. However, there is nothing illegal or against any policy that I am aware of in Disney.

If you tell me to stop. Then I would stop and move along. If I ,as a photographer, am ruining or interfering with your experience at WDW, then a CM can ask me to leave. I have no argument with that.

However, if I wish to take a random photo in a public place then I can do that. I might be taking an "atmosphere" photo of a location. I might catch a Character running along with a bunch of kids skipping behind them up Main Street.

Disney has a right to manage crowds while they are on a property. If disney has found that people sneaking pics of Characters during meet and greets is disruptive, that is fine. I can find a way to get a photo and be unobtrusive at the same time...or even wait until a better time if I think the shot is worth it.

[all4disney98]

If Disney prohibits people from taking side photos of characters for the purpose of "protecting children", then why would this streetmosphere show at MGM ENCOURAGE group photos filled with total strangers (children included) such as this one?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/Dznygrl99/DSC_0440.jpg

My brother took this last December when my mom was one of the "beautiful ladies" pulled out of the audience for the photo op. I can tell you that there were cameras going off like CRAZY for this. Was there anyone around freaking out about people not having "permission" to take their child's picture? No.

I'm more inclined to believe that the no side photos thing is merely a crowd control issue and a matter of "fairness".


Yup, this is fine because the people in this photo, and their parents, put them into a group photo situation and are therefore consenting to their picture being taken. Just like when you go to school and your parents sign a form at the beginning of the year acknowledging that your childs picture may be taken while at school and may be published in newspapers or school materials etc. I don't see anything wrong with people taking pics of the characters - and someone happens to be in the way. We are out in public and all. I just don't want to ever see a photo of just my child taken by a stranger posted anywhere on the internet, even Dis. I know some see this as strange, but in this day and age, there are people out there that take advantage of innocent situations and can do creepy things.

And I agree that this is more of Disney handling crowd issues and annoyances disrupting their lines moving along rather than a new law in place prohibiting picture taking. I would think that would be very hard to enforce.

[Robo]

If Disney prohibits people from taking side photos of characters for the purpose of "protecting children", then why would this streetmosphere show at MGM ENCOURAGE group photos filled with total strangers (children included) such as this one?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/Dznygrl99/DSC_0440.jpg




And who knows what kind of evil can be done?

Someone might take a tiny underexposed image and run it through Gil Grissom's CSI computer and turn it into an enlarged color-corrected detail-enhanced photo.

But, not-to-worry, Grissom is likely leaving the CSI force, and he may just take his computer with him.



http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/Dznygrl99/DSC_0440.jpghttp://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c265/RoboWDW/WDW%20Pictures/DSC_0440CC2X.jpg

[dburg30]

I have read a few people on this thread that have said that they do this because they enjoy photography etc. and this is where I have a problem. It is one thing to be in a picture by mistake - crowds in the background, someone walking through etc. But to specifically take a picture of a stranger, a child especially, is not right. I truly feel you do not have the right to do that without first asking permission. I am sure you love photography and take wonderful pictures, but it creeps me out that there are strangers out there are watching my daughter's first moments with Cinderella and feel that they should take a picture to capture the moment for themselves.

No flames or being mean please. This is just my opinion, which everyone is allowed to have.:hippie:


Yes it is your opinion, and I respect that, but I also disagree. I do have the right to take a picture of anything that I want (barring privacy issues, like in a bathroom, thru a window of a house etc etc). Plus, there is a chance the moment would be lost. Now, if I took a picture, would I, after I took the picture approach the folks and tell them that it was just too neat of shot to miss, show it to them, and inquire if they wanted a copy of it? Probably. Do I have to? No. Do I do this frequently, no not at all, and usually dont get lucky enough to catch anything that cool, but I can and would if it presents itself..

[ortholablady]

Wow, this has gotten crazy. I just have to say that I do what the OP did all the time. I stand out of anyone's way and snap a pic in between people posing. It's not always easy to do. If there isn't a spot to do it out of the way, I don't do it. Here's a couple examples.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/ortholablady/DSC02183.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/ortholablady/DSC02184.jpg

[jillyb]

Oh yeah! Thats just nuts! I can't imagine someone wearing a hat or sunglasses in sunny Florida. That other poster is a nut, I bet she puts sunscreen on the kiddos too! How awful!

This is a new low for the Dis I think, severely abused children are being called names. Wow guys, just wow.

I'm not calling severely abused children names.

And thanks for singling my post out from several others that also referred to Michael Jackson's children.

I believe the original poster stated that she wasn't talking about the foster children but peopel in general wearing "disguises" such as hats and sunglasses so they won't be recognized in photos.

[bytheblood]

My pictures have tons of others people's children in it. Guess I am breaking the law. ;)

[TheRustyScupper]

My pictures have tons of others people's children in it. Guess I am breaking the law.

1) Me too.
2) I know the FBI is looking for me because of this.
3) Of course, the FBI has been looking for me for a while
. . . I tore off the "do not remove under penalty of law" mattress tag
. . . I used football descriptions without permission of the NFL

[LilGMom]

1) . . . I tore off the "do not remove under penalty of law" mattress tag


:scared: Oh..... no..... you..... didn't!!! They now have your IP and are bringing the Serta police with them! :rolleyes1

[DizBelle]

Where is the overreacting exactly, my post state simple facts... I'm not the one who overreacted and claimed I said that no one could take wide crowd shots, or claimed that simple things (such as wearing a hat a sunglasses and avoiding being on stage) that a family faced with such problems were "hysterics", or liken them to disguises, or the witness protection program. I'm not the one who started making fun of abused children and calling them vampires.

Nope simple facts, you should ask before you take a picture of someone (such as when they ore posed with a character). To do so is simple and curteous. To refuse? At best its rude at worst, there is a very scary, and unfortunate reason to why they cannot have their picture taken.

"Excuese me!!!! EVERYBODY on Main Street!!!! Would you please form a line down the left and sign these releases allowing me to take your picture since you will undoubtedly be in the photos I take of Cinderella's Castle. Otherwise, plese leave Main Street while I take the picture."

THAT would go over well I'm sure....

[SurfinTX]

1) Me too.
2) I know the FBI is looking for me because of this.
3) Of course, the FBI has been looking for me for a while
. . . I tore off the "do not remove under penalty of law" mattress tag
. . . I used football descriptions without permission of the NFL

Now that you said FBI there are now 3 agents watching this thread, as well as the NSA and Dept. of Homeland Security.

I'm glad no one has said bomb yet...oops.:headache:

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

But to specifically take a picture of a stranger, a child especially, is not right. I truly feel you do not have the right to do that without first asking permission. I am sure you love photography and take wonderful pictures, but it creeps me out that there are strangers out there are watching my daughter's first moments with Cinderella and feel that they should take a picture to capture the moment for themselves.

Actually, I do have the right to take anyone's photo without permission in a public place where a reasonable right to privacy cannot be expected (aka a theme park). I don't have the right to stalk you or harass you but I can take a photo of little Jimmy chasing a butterfly if I want to. If that creeps you out, well, I guess you'll just have to be creeped out. It's called freedoms. Sometimes they can be offensive.

[BamaFan121s]

On our last trip while waiting in line in Toontown to see the Princesses, my daughter and a girl behind her started playing in line. Her mother was the only one with her and just seemed really bothered by this and ill tempered in general. Hubby had been taking pics of our kiddo in line to pass the time and snapped a pic of the two together--without bothering to ask the mom if it was OK first.:eek: She didn't say anything to him but gave him a look that would have melted ice. I, however, was upset with him--putting myself in her shoes, I would have been really mad too if some random stranger was taking pics of my child. (It wasn't as if the child was in the background somewhere of a pic, it was a picture taken OF this child purposely.) I was really upset at his momentary lack of common sense and embarassed. I looked at the pic as he showed me and reached up to hit the delete button making sure the mom saw and knew I was doing it. He got really mad (tired and suffering from the occasional don't-tell-me-what-to-do blues) took the camera and walked out of line. (his loss) I apologized to the mother who was furious and ensured her that the picture WOULD be deleted. Sure enough, when I got home, first thing I did while unpacking was load the pictures on the PC and deleted the one of the mystery child. All the while laying into my hubby (now that we were back in the privacy of our home) for taking it--I think I might have scarred him a bit...he may NEVER take another pic in WDW again.
IMO, blatant pics of someone else's child just shouldn't be taken. Of course you are going to get the random person in your photos, that's one thing, but to outright take a full on pic of someone else's kid....not right.:sad2:

[Laurabearz]

Well this has been a fun thread to read

[arielchickenofthesea]

How in the world is a person to get ANY pictures at all if they have some sort of law about not taking pictures of other people's kids? I take pictures of the pool and resorts and the buildings and all over the Parks and there are always other people in them. In fact it is nearly impossible to get pictures WITHOUT other people in them. Cameras are ubiquitous in the Parks, who doesn't bring one to capture those moments?

I have always taken pics of the characters, trying to click away when they are between people. Sometimes we stand in line and get our pic taken, sometimes the line is too long and we just get a shot from a distance. I have never been told not to do it. I think if I were told that, I would seek out Guest Services and ask how in the world thay can enforce that when thousands of other people at the resort can't move out of your pictures. This sounds like a harebrained idea.

I understand the need to protect children and I always honor that or try to honor that by not taking pics with the characters with other people's kids or try to wait for kids to move away from a particular scene I want to shoot. That being said, it can be impossibe to achieve taking a shot with NO one in the background, unless for some reason they want to let me in at 6AM before anyone else and I take all my photos then. Right, like that's gonna happen!:rolleyes: And when you are standing on Main Street and trying to get a shot of the castle, you ARE going to get many, many people in your shots. Pretty much the same all over the Park...I don't get why the CM told the OP to not take a picture. What, now *certain* picture taking is forbidden in the Parks? :confused3 What will they think of next?:rolleyes2

Come to think of it, I am probably in a LOT of other people's vacation shots. If you all would be so kind as to send me copies of any of them that I am in, I can add them to my scrapbooks too! :rotfl: :rotfl2:


ariel

[MonicaInFlorida]

On our last trip while waiting in line in Toontown to see the Princesses, my daughter and a girl behind her started playing in line. Her mother was the only one with her and just seemed really bothered by this and ill tempered in general. Hubby had been taking pics of our kiddo in line to pass the time and snapped a pic of the two together--without bothering to ask the mom if it was OK first.:eek: She didn't say anything to him but gave him a look that would have melted ice. I, however, was upset with him--putting myself in her shoes, I would have been really mad too if some random stranger was taking pics of my child. (It wasn't as if the child was in the background somewhere of a pic, it was a picture taken OF this child purposely.) I was really upset at his momentary lack of common sense and embarassed. I looked at the pic as he showed me and reached up to hit the delete button making sure the mom saw and knew I was doing it. He got really mad (tired and suffering from the occasional don't-tell-me-what-to-do blues) took the camera and walked out of line. (his loss) I apologized to the mother who was furious and ensured her that the picture WOULD be deleted. Sure enough, when I got home, first thing I did while unpacking was load the pictures on the PC and deleted the one of the mystery child. All the while laying into my hubby (now that we were back in the privacy of our home) for taking it--I think I might have scarred him a bit...he may NEVER take another pic in WDW again.
IMO, blatant pics of someone else's child just shouldn't be taken. Of course you are going to get the random person in your photos, that's one thing, but to outright take a full on pic of someone else's kid....not right.:sad2:

It's not like he was taking a picture of just her kid... he was capturing a touching moment when his own daughter had made a little friend. So, you essentially stole a harmless memory from both your daughter and your husband to placate a nasty, paranoid woman who thought your husband was a perv. If I were him, I'd be angry and hurt, too.

[lilyv]

It's not like he was taking a picture of just her kid... he was capturing a touching moment when his own daughter had made a little friend. So, you essentially stole a harmless memory from both your daughter and your husband to placate a nasty, paranoid woman who thought your husband was a perv. If I were him, I'd be angry and hurt, too.

ITA. This is so sad. Why couldn't have mom just told the other mom, that's our little girl, and it's so sweet they are visiting with each other. Maybe be kind. I feel so very sorry for the husband. He will now forever have to carefully analyze normal photo situations if he's even willing to take a photo again. So unnecessary.

[sunnydoozer]

I'm not calling severely abused children names.

And thanks for singling my post out from several others that also referred to Michael Jackson's children.

I believe the original poster stated that she wasn't talking about the foster children but peopel in general wearing "disguises" such as hats and sunglasses so they won't be recognized in photos.

You are incorrect the original poster said specifically of Foster kids, occasionally they came with a "state mandate" that said they
could not have their picture taken as an example of a good reason why someone should ask before taking a photograph of someone else's child. She also said that they would wear hats and sunglasses, to be less visible in crowd shots. You are one of the many people who made light of this situation, other posters called the kids vampires you called them Michael Jackson's kids, or decided that a simple pair of sunglasses could be blown out of proportion to a disguise, or as one poster said a Burka.

Lovely, just lovely.

I for the record wore a hat and sunglasses to work today and no one called me Michael Jackson.

[BamaFan121s]

It's not like he was taking a picture of just her kid... he was capturing a touching moment when his own daughter had made a little friend. So, you essentially stole a harmless memory from both your daughter and your husband to placate a nasty, paranoid woman who thought your husband was a perv. If I were him, I'd be angry and hurt, too.

ITA. This is so sad. Why couldn't have mom just told the other mom, that's our little girl, and it's so sweet they are visiting with each other. Maybe be kind. I feel so very sorry for the husband. He will now forever have to carefully analyze normal photo situations if he's even willing to take a photo again. So unnecessary.


Proving once again that we all have our own opinions of what is considered rude and inconsiderate. :sad2: How silly of me to think that I could share a relating story without having my position as both a wife and mother attacked.:rolleyes: What was I thinking...
Thank goodness I am not in the presence of perfection so that I can learn how to properly handle a situation involving MY family in the future. Next time I'll include every detail down to the blood type of the parties involved so that you will have all of the details before you pass judgment as opposed to just the portion that relevant to the discussion in process.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go punish myself for stealing my family's memories. (what a joke)

[Cool-Beans]

I cannot believe how long this thing has gone on!!

Though everyone considers their children precious, I don't find stranger's kids all that wonderful. When I snap a pic that includes strangers (and/or their kids) I do it in spite of the people in the pic, not because I want them there. I'd be thrilled if everybody got out of the way. But they don't. So, I have pics of strangers and their children.

People take lots of pictures there. You can't swing a cat without hitting the word KODAK on something. Snap, snap, snap, all day long, every day.

If you're all that worried about your kid ending up photographed by a stranger, keep them out of Disney World.

[lilyv]

So is the "new" standard that strangers can demand you not take photos of your child if their child is in range? I get it about people taking random shots, deliberately zooming in on a child that isn't theirs. I don't get it about parents being forbidden to take a photo of their own child, and getting in a lot of trouble if they do.

Does Disney outline the photo policies anywhere? Tickets? Gates? Most visitors would like to know what the rules of conduct are. Or, is this just one visitor demanding something extraordinarily unreasonable of another Disney vacationer?

[MonicaInFlorida]

Proving once again that we all have our own opinions of what is considered rude and inconsiderate. :sad2: How silly of me to think that I could share a relating story without having my position as both a wife and mother attacked.:rolleyes: What was I thinking...
Thank goodness I am not in the presence of perfection so that I can learn how to properly handle a situation involving MY family in the future. Next time I'll include every detail down to the blood type of the parties involved so that you will have all of the details before you pass judgment as opposed to just the portion that relevant to the discussion in process.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go punish myself for stealing my family's memories. (what a joke)

Oh, come on! Don't get all faux-wounded. You're the one who posted it to begin with... If you can dish it out, you should be prepared to take it.

[marivaid]

Proving once again that we all have our own opinions of what is considered rude and inconsiderate. :sad2: How silly of me to think that I could share a relating story without having my position as both a wife and mother attacked.:rolleyes: What was I thinking...
Thank goodness I am not in the presence of perfection so that I can learn how to properly handle a situation involving MY family in the future. Next time I'll include every detail down to the blood type of the parties involved so that you will have all of the details before you pass judgment as opposed to just the portion that relevant to the discussion in process.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go punish myself for stealing my family's memories. (what a joke)

I'm not going to pass judgement on you as a mother or as a wife, since I'm neither and don't know what I'd do if put in that position (though I'm guessing that the reaction you had was at least partly due to the other mom's).

What I will say though is that your story made me feel sad. I have dozens of photos of me as a small child with little friends I had only for a few minutes, or a few days. The names and circumstances are long gone from my memory, of course, but it's nice to look at those pics once in a blue moon. What happened to innocence and when did we start seeing evil everywhere ?

[BamaFan121s]

So is the "new" standard that strangers can demand you not take photos of your child if their child is in range? I get it about people taking random shots, deliberately zooming in on a child that isn't theirs. I don't get it about parents being forbidden to take a photo of their own child, and getting in a lot of trouble if they do.

Wow, what a twist of words! If the case were a parent taking a photo of their own child, then why would they be 'in trouble.' I don't think anyone indicated that at all. However, if a parent is taking pictures of two kids--one their own, one not--against the other stranger-parents wishes...then yeah, there is a BIG problem.

[cmash95]

i don't know if this has been mentioned because i didn't read the whole thread, sorry. but if you are taking a picture, it can screw up the photopass pictures and disney really wants to sell those pictures. I know they offer to take your picture with your camera but they really want you t obuy the cds so lately they have been picky about where people stand in order to get the perfect shot. also it seems a bit wierd to me that anyone would want to take a picture of someone else's family posing with a character, so I can see disney saying no when families are there, but when it's in between families, then there really is no reason why you couldn't take a quick candid shot. I think the character handlers are just being over protective of their characters because of all the problems they have had with tigger especially.

[MonicaInFlorida]

What happened to innocence and when did we start seeing evil everywhere ?

http://i515.photobucket.com/albums/t355/MonicaInFlorida/TCAP.jpg

Why don't you have a seat over there.

[BamaFan121s]

Oh, come on! Don't get all faux-wounded. You're the one who posted it to begin with... If you can dish it out, you should be prepared to take it.

I can take anything I dish out. However, I shared a story, I didn't "dish" out anything or criticize anyone else--I shared a story, not passing judgement on anyone. Trust me, I've been around public forums for a while....I'm pretty thick skinned and don't give rude comments such as yours a second thought once I cut off my PC.


I'm not going to pass judgement on you as a mother or as a wife

Thank you.:)

I have dozens of photos of me as a small child with little friends I had only for a few minutes, or a few days. The names and circumstances are long gone from my memory, of course, but it's nice to look at those pics once in a blue moon.

Apparently then the parents of those children didn't mind. I would love my child to have a pic to save forever of every 'friend' she meets. However, not at the price of upsetting another parent because of my lack of consideration. I get your point and agree--it is very unfortunate when as a parent (or person) you have to even question the intentions of people partaking in something so innocent as taking a picture.

[Sleeping Becca]

http://i515.photobucket.com/albums/t355/MonicaInFlorida/TCAP.jpg

Why don't you have a seat over there.
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there. LMAO Good one.

[lilyv]

Wow, what a twist of words! If the case were a parent taking a photo of their own child, then why would they be 'in trouble.' I don't think anyone indicated that at all. However, if a parent is taking pictures of two kids--one their own, one not--against the other stranger-parents wishes...then yeah, there is a BIG problem.

I guess I don't agree. Parents who don't want any photos probably shouldn't be visiting WDW. To expect that each and every visitor will either get verbal permission from everyone in range of their child or carefully segregate their child or children away from any other individual in the park is, I think, unreasonable, unworkable and unnecessary.

I can tell we differ on this, and that's OK. Please know, though, that this isn't a highly charged emotional issue for me. I don't see other guests in shots of a vacationing family's children a "big" problem. I do see other guests over dictating the park experience for other as a problem, and one that isn't positive.

[PrincessKsMom]

I find it amusing that there are parents who are so paranoid, particularly because I'm sure these are the same parents who will howl and carry on if I stand in line by myself, or with my DD12 and DM, to get pictures of the characters. I'm sure they'll be complaining that I'm ruining it for the "kids" and that I'm an adult who shouldn't be wasting precious character time because Little Johnny and Little Suzie won't get their turn. Probably the same people who think I have no business watching the parade from a good vantage point because it's for the kids, not the adults. :headache:

[lustergirl]

wow 16 pages so far!!

[dburg30]

wow 16 pages so far!!

:thumbsup2

[BamaFan121s]

To expect that each and every visitor will either get verbal permission from everyone in range of their child or carefully segregate their child or children away from any other individual in the park is, I think, unreasonable, unworkable and unnecessary.

There is a difference between a child being in range and in the background who just 'happens' to show up in the background of a picture and a parent 'directing' your child and taking a picture of them when they are at close range and the clear main target. (Especially give the fact that this particular lady had already demonstrated she was NOT OK with this.)

I can tell we differ on this, and that's OK. Please know, though, that this isn't a highly charged emotional issue for me. I do see other guests over dictating the park experience for other as a problem, and one that isn't positive.

Of course it's OK to disagree...how boring a world would it be if we all shared the exact same thoughts for every little thing. The photo-taking aspect is not a supercharged emotional issue for me either. People who have NO inside knowledge regarding my family who make comments suggesting I have "robbed" my family of memories or similarly suggesting that I didn't properly handle a situation as it pertained to US...that DOES get to me. As far as my particular situation, no one was over dictating the park...it was a situation between myself, hubby and one other person....not a parkwide infringment of rights.

But like you said, we differ in opinion...I guess we are both guilty of being human.

[melancholywings]

It's sad that a few perverts and pedos have hijacked an art medium. Photography is such a wonderful way to capture the beauty of the human spirit. But now you take a picture that for you celebrates a love of living, beauty, or has some emotional element and your labled a perv. I can't imagine living with that kind of extreme paranoia - and I'm a pretty anxiety filled person.

Would it make a difference if instead of a camera the person had a sketch book?

There's protecting your childen (because child abuse is very real and serious) and then there's being overly paranoid and teaching them that everyone with a camera is some pedo that wants to molest them. And considering that the number of children who are abused by strangers is relatively small against the number of children who are abused by family (Statistic from darkness2light):

-30-40% of victims are abused by a family member. (2, 44, 76)
-Another 50% are abused by someone outside of the family whom they know and trust.
-Approximately 40% are abused by older or larger children whom they know. (1, 44)
-Therefore, only 10% are abused by strangers

I think you have more to worry about fellow family members taking pictures of your children than some stranger.

[BamaFan121s]

I'm sure these are the same parents who will howl and carry on if I stand in line by myself, or with my DD12 and DM, to get pictures of the characters. I'm sure they'll be complaining that I'm ruining it for the "kids" and that I'm an adult who shouldn't be wasting precious character time because Little Johnny and Little Suzie won't get their turn. Probably the same people who think I have no business watching the parade from a good vantage point because it's for the kids, not the adults.

For the record, I think the only people who should be allowed to see the characters or have a prime parade spot are those who had a ticket valid for admission on that day.:3dglasses

[merryweather20]

Some people think that telling a CM to turn off a camera which takes riders photos on certain attractions is overreacting. You don't have to agree.

Once again, nobody is making fun of abused children. THEY ARE MAKING FUN OF YOU!!

Just because you think people should ask to take photos doesn't make it fact. That's a matter of opinion. I don't think I should have to ask to take anyone's photo in public from a distance and I wouldn't expect other people to ask me either.

Somehow I missed this little gem, you could see where I was confused. The original poster said vampire children. The correct way of making fun of me would be to say YOU ARE A VAMPIRE. Again simple, the poster says "vampire children" their making fun of the kids. They say "Vampire poster merryweather20" they are making fun of me. Perhaps time for an English course... Well for everyone that thought they were making fun of me when they specifically stated "children".

As for overreacting by asking the CM to turn the camera off... How is this overreacting? The kids can't have their picture taken by mandate, so it was the only way for them to enjoy the ride. Overeacting?? :confused3 Seems like a simple solution to me.

[dburg30]

Somehow I missed this little gem, you could see where I was confused. The original poster said vampire children. The correct way of making fun of me would be to say YOU ARE A VAMPIRE. Again simple, the poster says "vampire children" their making fun of the kids. They say "Vampire poster merryweather20" they are making fun of me. Perhaps time for an English course... Well for everyone that thought they were making fun of me when they specifically said children in their comments.

As for overreacting by asking the CM to turn the camera off... How is this overreacting? The kids can't have their picture taken by mandate, so it was the only way for them to enjoy the ride. Overeacting?? :confused3 Seems like a simple solution to me.

Doesnt sound 'simple' at all. Especially if the other people in the picture WANTED a picture of them.. The SIMPLE thing to do, would be NOT to ride rides that have pictures taken. Why ruin other peoples fun?

I dont think you ever did say where the film taking thing happened? Was it in the US?

And the 'vampire' statment, had to do not with the children per se, but people were trying to figure out why.... oh nevermind, no reason to even try to explain..

Edit: And good God, when I said 'wanted a picture of them' I of course didnt mean the kids, I meant the other riders.. Before you wonder why someone would want a picture of your kids..

[merryweather20]

Doesnt sound 'simple' at all. Especially if the other people in the picture WANTED a picture of them.. The SIMPLE thing to do, would be NOT to ride rides that have pictures taken. Why ruin other peoples fun?

I dont think you ever did say where the film taking thing happened? Was it in the US?

And the 'vampire' statment, had to do not with the children per se, but people were trying to figure out why.... oh nevermind, no reason to even try to explain..

Edit: And good God, when I said 'wanted a picture of them' I of course didnt mean the kids, I meant the other riders.. Before you wonder why someone would want a picture of your kids..

You're right to heck with the kids! Imagine them, wanting to have fun and go on a ride. You're right they are vampires!

Well turns out they're not, my Uncle waited to the end of the day and they got a log all to themselves. They're nice people (after all they've given their time to be foster parents) so of course they wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone. I probably shouldn't have told you this either though. If I can judge by the rest of the thread you guys will think that the extremely simple curtesy of waiting for a slow period was OVEREACTING and CRAZYNESS.

And again if the vampire children statement didn't have to do with the children, they could have say not called the children vampires... Oh nevermind, no reason to even try to explain..

[PrincessKsMom]

You're right to heck with the kids! Imagine them, wanting to have fun and go on a ride. You're right they are vampires!

Well turns out they're not, my Uncle waited to the end of the day and they got a log all to themselves. They're nice people (after all they've given their time to be foster parents) so of course they wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone. I probably shouldn't have told you this either though. If I can judge by the rest of the thread you guys will think that the extremely simple curtesy of waiting for a slow period was OVEREACTING and CRAZYNESS.

And again if the vampire children statement didn't have to do with the children, they could have say not called the children vampires... Oh nevermind, no reason to even try to explain..

Legend has it vampires CANNOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED. The picture comes out blank. That's the whole vampire thing in a nutshell.

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

You are incorrect the original poster said specifically of Foster kids, occasionally they came with a "state mandate" that said they
could not have their picture taken as an example of a good reason why someone should ask before taking a photograph of someone else's child.

Just to be clear, the original poster (OP) didn't say taht at all, a previous poster (PP) did. I don't mean to nitpick but I don't want people to confuse that particular line of reasoning with what the OP thinks.

There is a difference between a child being in range and in the background who just 'happens' to show up in the background of a picture and a parent 'directing' your child and taking a picture of them when they are at close range and the clear main target.

Here's the thing. Many of us don't see what that difference is. Legally, both are fine and either way, the kid ends up in a stranger's photo. Just explain to me what's so wrong about someone having a photo of your child.

[william4192]

We sometimes get really far behind them and snap a quick photo while next person is walking up. I know it is totally rude, but the pictures are so funny of how small you look compared to the character. It is rare we do this.

[BamaFan121s]

Here's the thing. Many of us don't see what that difference is. Legally, both are fine and either way, the kid ends up in a stranger's photo. Just explain to me what's so wrong about someone having a photo of your child.

What's wrong with blantantly taking a picture OF a child when the parent has made it clear that they don't want you to? If you don't see that as a problem then nothing I can "explain" will help you to see another point of view. I wasn't referring to the general situation with that comment, but to one specific situation I was invovled in.

[Sleeping Becca]

This dead horse is bloody and is not going anywhere, so I think we can stop beating it.

[BamaFan121s]

This dead horse is bloody and is not going anywhere, so I think we can stop beating it.

I agree and think I'll take that advice. I really regret having opened this thread. Subjects likely to become this combative should have a warning symbol....or at least a thread title that is not funny. I thought this was going to be a cute little story w/ a joke. Well, I was right about it being a joke...

[lilyv]

What's wrong with blantantly taking a picture OF a child when the parent has made it clear that they don't want you to? If you don't see that as a problem then nothing I can "explain" will help you to see another point of view. I wasn't referring to the general situation with that comment, but to one specific situation I was invovled in.

Probably the difference is I wouldn't have picked up on non-verbal cues you mentioned in your post. I would have quickly shot the photo without a second thought about someone giving a "look". Even if I vaguely noticed them, I wouldn't think twice about what their motivations were for having giving me "look". You see all sorts of people at Disney..happy, sad, easygoing, grumpy.
I would have shot the picture of my child, and went on with my day. I suspect most would do the same.

If a parent wanted to make it loudly verbally clear "no photos", I guess they could, but again, I'm not certain they really can have an expectation of total privacy and control over their experience AND the happy experience of others. It's a normal very acceptable picture taking experience referenced--a proud, happy Dad taking a photo of his little girl as she's enjoying the park. Of course there are other children around.

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

What's wrong with blantantly taking a picture OF a child when the parent has made it clear that they don't want you to? If you don't see that as a problem then nothing I can "explain" will help you to see another point of view. I wasn't referring to the general situation with that comment, but to one specific situation I was invovled in.

If someone told me not to take a photo of their child, I wouldn't. However, I don't see where that happened in any of the examples given. I don't play games with people and I'm not in the business of interpreting looks. And if you aren't refering to general situations, which is what the thread is about, why did you pipe in?

[dburg30]

You're right to heck with the kids! Imagine them, wanting to have fun and go on a ride.



There are plenty of rides that do not have photos taken. So my point, was why ride those rides that could cause others to not be able to get their pictures, and possibly HARM them for life because their vacation was ruined?

edit: oops.. forgot to CAP harm...

[BamaFan121s]

If someone told me not to take a photo of their child, I wouldn't. However, I don't see where that happened in any of the examples given. I don't play games with people and I'm not in the business of interpreting looks. And if you aren't refering to general situations, which is what the thread is about, why did you pipe in?

I piped in to share a story regarding my experience and opinion as it was relevant to the topic. Trust me, had I know it was going to be made personal and I singled out, I would have kept my mouth shut. You didn't have to "interpret looks from the woman"...her actions and words to us throughout the 45 min wait were clear a little more obvious....they were also irrelevant to the subject, which was why I didn't feel the need to share them. Given ALL the circmstances regarding the incident and the days events, my husband was clearly wrong in the situation. Even he admits it.

Probably the difference is I wouldn't have picked up on non-verbal cues you mentioned in your post. I would have quickly shot the photo without a second thought about someone giving a "look".

There were alot more than "looks." I failed to include every detail of our encounter with her as it wasn't releveant to the actual topic being discussed. My mistake--should have realize that people will ASSume they know better rather than taking something for face value as it was meant.

[sunnydoozer]

Just to be clear, the original poster (OP) didn't say taht at all, a previous poster (PP) did. I don't mean to nitpick but I don't want people to confuse that particular line of reasoning with what the OP thinks.



Here's the thing. Many of us don't see what that difference is. Legally, both are fine and either way, the kid ends up in a stranger's photo. Just explain to me what's so wrong about someone having a photo of your child.

Feel free to scroll back I guess. The original poster said precisely that. There was a whole series of posts about two types who could come to harm from having their photo taken. These specific Foster kids and some school kids that had somewhere that had their pictures posted on a web-site with pedophiles. In there she said the kids at Disney would wear hats and sunglasses for crowds, that they could ask the CM's to turn the camera off at the rides that had cameras and that they wouldn't go up on stage for any type of show, I guess to again avoid pictures from the crowd.

The thing is its simply rude. I've read all these people protesting its legal! They're out in public! But, its still rude. Whats legal is the bare bones of acceptable conduct. I'd expect a reasonable adult to throw in a little bit of polite, a little bit of courtesy, a little bit of friendliness.

Even though I've read all the posts vehemently defending your god given right to photograph strangers, I'm positive if someone really walked up to you or your kid and snapped a photo you'd be weirded out.

At the end of the day I'm right, because when I ask permission to take a photo I get to meet a stranger and make a new friend if even for a few minutes. Maybe I'll even get the chance to brag about my camera :lmao: For me it works, I really don't want to be rude, and the conversation makes the picture all the more memorable.

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Feel free to scroll back I guess. The original poster said precisely that. There was a whole series of posts about two types who could come to harm from having their photo taken. These specific Foster kids and some school kids that had somewhere that had their pictures posted on a web-site with pedophiles. In there she said the kids at Disney would wear hats and sunglasses for crowds, that they could ask the CM's to turn the camera off at the rides that had cameras and that they wouldn't go up on stage for any type of show, I guess to again avoid pictures from the crowd.

No. The OP is Antree. Original Poster refers to the person who started the thread. I think you're confusing her with a Previous Poster (PP) named Merryweather20 who was talking about foster children.

And just to be clear, I don't go up to people and get in their faces and take their photos. I would be very embarassed to do that. I take the occasional shot of a stranger discreetly and usually from a great distance.

[merryweather20]

There are plenty of rides that do not have photos taken. So my point, was why ride those rides that could cause others to not be able to get their pictures, and possibly HARM them for life because their vacation was ruined?

edit: oops.. forgot to CAP harm...

And you cut out the particular part of my post where I said they didn't incovenience anyone, because???

I guess you missed it. No matter here it is:


Well turns out they're not, my Uncle waited to the end of the day and they got a log all to themselves. They're nice people (after all they've given their time to be foster parents) so of course they wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone. I probably shouldn't have told you this either though. If I can judge by the rest of the thread you guys will think that the extremely simple curtesy of waiting for a slow period was OVEREACTING and CRAZYNESS.


Glad I could help out:thumbsup2