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

[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 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

 

[sbell111]

... 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. ... 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) ...

Are you surprised that not only do several people on the boards disagree with your position, but your husband also does? Isn't it possible that this is because your stand may be taking security a bit too far?

 

[sbell111]

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? ...

If there is such a law, I would challenge those that agree with it to post a link to it.

 

[teach22180]

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

Don't try to add any common sense to this thread! It's way too late for that, but it was a nice try.

 

[sbell111]

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.

Actually, the original poster simply tried to take a picture of Donald Duck without even having any children in the frame. It was some other poster who bent the thread to discuss some hypothetical foster child issue.

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.

Actually, I was the one who brought vampires into the thread. Someone asked why people would not be able to have pictures taken of them. I gave the most obvious answer, 'vampires'. Everyone knows that you can't take a picture of a vampire.

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

Sure, but were you wearing one glove and a surgical mask?

 

[dburg30]

sig updated accordingly

 

[sbell111]

Proving once again that we all have our own opinions of what is considered rude and inconsiderate. How silly of me to think that I could share a relating story without having my position as both a wife and mother attacked. 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)

You know, I'm married so perhaps your comment hits a bit too close to home. That being said, you are the one that caused the angst between you and your husband that you posted about. It wasn't him, the other woman, or either of the kids. It was you.

If you didn't want the issue probed, you shouldn't have posted it.

 

[sunnydoozer]

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.

Antree is the OP for the post only, merryweather20 would be the "original poster" for the foster children posts, previous poster could refer to anyone. Sorry you were confused

 

[sbell111]

... 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. ...

Ummm, you stated that you deleted the picture after you returned home. At that point, the other woman's feelings are no longer an issue. She's still upset or she's forgotten the entire thing. Either way, she is no longer affected by the actual picture's existence.

 

[sunnydoozer]

Actually, I was the one who brought vampires into the thread.

Not sure why you want to take credit for something thats a little sick, but since we're splitting hairs you just said "vampires" it was Blabbermouth who specified "Vampire foster children"

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

 

[sbell111]

... Given ALL the circmstances regarding the incident and the days events, my husband was clearly wrong in the situation. Even he admits it.

Speaking as a husband, it's only fair to mention that there have been many times when I have 'admitted' to being wrong simply to avoid dragging a really dumb argument out.