Should I be worried?

[Adrian42]

Depends on what you are worried of.

Many people tend to forget that publishing, especially publishing worldwide in the internet, of a photograph depicting a person requires the explicit permission of the person depicted (in the case of a toddler from the parents).
(There are some exceptions when a person is "famous", but that's not the case here.)

If you are worried that he might illegally publish pictures of your toddler - that does not sound completely unlikely.
I don't see any reason to be worried of him being interested in anything other than taking pictures of children.

[jahasjahas]

Exactly, you don't need a permission for taking pictures in a public place, but there are restrictions on whether you can publish them.

http://www.mediakasvatus.fi/artikkelit/kuvauslupa
http://www.journalistiliitto.fi/journal ... aa_kuvata/
http://www.timolaine.fi/missa-saa-kuvata/

[Adrian42]

I don't see any reason to be worried of him being interested in anything other than taking pictures of children.

It's just plain creepy.

Think of it the next time you hear about a photographer making an exhibition or publishing a book with photos of children in Africa or Asia - that is exactly the same creepiness.

[Adrian42]

It's just plain creepy.

Think of it the next time you hear about a photographer making an exhibition or publishing a book with photos of children in Africa or Asia - that is exactly the same creepiness.

Those exhibitions are mainly to raise awareness about the hardship of children in those regions. I fail to see the same applying here.

No, usually they are made to show people how people in other parts of the world are living.

E.g. Japan and Finland have a comparable standard of living, but how exactly people in one country are living looks pretty exotic to people in the other country.

You might not consider it strange if e.g. Sinebrychoff museum or Kiasma in Helsinki would host an exhibition of photos depicting the life of normal people (including children) in Japan, and perhaps this photographer was shooting photos for an exhibition depicting life in Finland?

[Pursuivant]

He probably could have told it in fluent Chinese.

Some 2000 years from now the archeologists will believe that western people held their children locked in cages, they have a few papyri telling of horror stories and evidence - pictures without children in them. Just wait and see

[rinso]

Think of it the next time you hear about a photographer making an exhibition or publishing a book with photos of children in Africa or Asia - that is exactly the same creepiness.

Those exhibitions are mainly to raise awareness about the hardship of children in those regions. I fail to see the same applying here.

No, usually they are made to show people how people in other parts of the world are living.

E.g. Japan and Finland have a comparable standard of living, but how exactly people in one country are living looks pretty exotic to people in the other country.

You might not consider it strange if e.g. Sinebrychoff museum or Kiasma in Helsinki would host an exhibition of photos depicting the life of normal people (including children) in Japan, and perhaps this photographer was shooting photos for an exhibition depicting life in Finland?

I'm with Adrian on this.
Children are less restricted than adults in their behavior and it can create a different style of photo. Nothing wrong with that.
Just because of a few weirdos we are now paranoid if it concerned children.
If we continue in this way, Hanks vision of the future will soon become true.

[Upphew]

a high end camera was taking high resolution photos

What camera and resolution? And does it make difference?

edit. 1D mk3 or D4 with 200mm/2.8 wouldn't be my choice for street photography either. And latter is so-n-so if it can be called high resolution...

[Rip]

I confess i have a plenty of pictures of people, in including children, taken in foreign countries. Just a hobby. I typically try not make the subject notice me (up to you if you consider that a mitigating or aggravating factor).

Nothing wrong with wildlife, scenery or historic buildings, but looking back at them several years later, the ones with people tend to be more interesting on average.

[rinso]

the ones with people tend to be more interesting on average.

Indeed in professional photo exhibitions people are almost always the main subject group.

[Pursuivant]

When I visit places, I take snaps of just "ordinary street life" - focused to infinity or to a certain distance I just take a snap (without evidently looking) when people are in the focus range. I got no clue who the people are and really don't give a damn, they're the texture of an urban location. You can't have a city without its people.

[Upphew]

When I visit places, I take snaps of just "ordinary street life" - focused to infinity or to a certain distance I just take a snap (without evidently looking) when people are in the focus range. I got no clue who the people are and really don't give a damn, they're the texture of an urban location. You can't have a city without its people.

Pripyat would be nice without people too though.

[Pursuivant]

[irnbru]

When I visit places, I take snaps of just "ordinary street life" - focused to infinity or to a certain distance I just take a snap (without evidently looking) when people are in the focus range. I got no clue who the people are and really don't give a damn, they're the texture of an urban location. You can't have a city without its people.

Whats that? A quote from Gary Glitter in PC World?

[Pursuivant]

Howcome we always tend to catch up with very current topics?
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1 ... 22009.html

Well, OK, that is a bit more worrying...