No, I don't know this little boy, there are only girls in the family (two daughters and two granddaughters, and my cousins and nieces also have mostly daughters!!!)
At the same time, as a member of the team I must add, it is only illegal when images of children are posted when they are in the nude, if they are sexually suggestive and/or put the child in danger. None of this is present in this photo and until or unless it can the child or his/her parent(s) make such a request, there is no need to remove the photo or refrain from further photographs. Per one member of the team, prohibiting shots of children would be a "sad case." The same holds true with regard to images of people. During the pre-IMA years, some at Ipernity SA tried to prohibit images of anyone in public, which to me based on other photographic sites, was a huge mistake! Finally other photographic sites also allow members to post images of children in public spaces as long as they're not harmful, abusive or exploitative.
Loading
4 comments
m̌ ḫ said:
Typo93 replied to m̌ ḫ:
m̌ ḫ said:
William Sutherland said:
At the same time, as a member of the team I must add, it is only illegal when images of children are posted when they are in the nude, if they are sexually suggestive and/or put the child in danger. None of this is present in this photo and until or unless it can the child or his/her parent(s) make such a request, there is no need to remove the photo or refrain from further photographs. Per one member of the team, prohibiting shots of children would be a "sad case." The same holds true with regard to images of people. During the pre-IMA years, some at Ipernity SA tried to prohibit images of anyone in public, which to me based on other photographic sites, was a huge mistake! Finally other photographic sites also allow members to post images of children in public spaces as long as they're not harmful, abusive or exploitative.