Schools banning photography

cornishboy said:
There is a diffence between rules being questioned, for which Ding and I have given a number of reasons as to why those rules may be in place, and rules being ignored because of the bloodymindedness of a few individuals who don't feel they need to follow them, even though they will never be in full possession of all the facts.
Click to expand...

Agree. In my imaginary school with its no photography rules you are very welcome to come and talk to me and question any rules of the school. I will give you reasons why the rules are there and would be open to discussion about them.
We can spend time going through budgets, what time (cost) is spent on the policies, processes and rules within the school and which give a return (good for child education) and which don't. I would hope that the don'ts would be very minimal if I am running the school correctly. Putting policies and processes and subsequent checks around what photography is allowed, when, where etc,. is a definite non return on investment for me.
If any rules were to be changed via vote/forum within school then these cost/benefit figures would be a major input into the discussion to ensure that everybody is aware of implications on both sides.
 
Bluehawk said:
Hi Ernesto, no the irony wasn't missed. Completely off thread now, but I probably had in mind Milliband apologising for the Labout Govt Immigration fiasco. At the time anyone questioning his wisdom was simply denegrated as being a racist. ( Which qualifies him as Loony ) I have debates with a family member about loads of issues, she being one side of middle of the road and me being the opposite, and although we often disagree we are either both loonies, or neither of us is ! Hope no one in the above thread suffered from apoplexy !
Click to expand...

Typical response I would expect from one of those loonies, you are all the same :)
 
The answer is simple one and as togs you should get in there and solve the problem for the school and the parents and make some dosh in the bargain.

Plays always look naff with gym kit and painted hand prints all over the wall.

Do what we do. Shoot all the cast for the school in studio set up and let the school show all finished prints to buy in reception as Parents come to see the show.

With the foster kids we leave those with the school to show for the foster parents to have in private.

so it's win win for the school play shots and win win for the foster care parents and you get some dosh at the same time for selling them....

Easy answer to an thread that has no right or wrong.......
 
This thread has developed far away from the op's comments, interesting to read none the less.

For a balanced view take a look at the BBC even central government can see a way to allow photography at school events including ones that include vulnerable children so not too sure if the blanket ban by a school is really reasonable.

Daryl, that's a good idea if you happen to be a pro or have access to a studio but I would guess most parents aren't and don't and I for one would not want to take money from the school in that way, I know it's your business and that's fine but I can not be bothered registering with the tax office for a one off like that. If I or others were to do it for free I have no doubt the pro's would be up in arms with the 'your killing this profession' argument. So if there's a local pro then maybe but then the school falls into the 'your banning parents for profit' bracket. I don't see any of that as a win win.
 
Originally Posted by boyfalldown
Additionally, assuming that I published that childs face somewhere, its one very big leap to assume that the person they were moved from would see and be able to place that photo's location. No more then say the risk of a press photo (inside or outside school)


Originally Posted by Ding76uk
It does happen. Not very often, but it does and the upheaval to a family because of this is not good for them.


Sorry excuse the laziness of not adding the quotes properly, but if it's all a big secret and details are not given, how do you know? From my experiences, it's always been a Chinese whispers, or really vague because those that know the details won't say anything, and so an over-reaction takes place - "Won't somebody think of the children".

I guess the real issue here is a proportionate response and there will always be a subjective judgement on where the line is drawn, which is why we often end up with these discussions.
 
Last edited:
Okay I will let you in on my cunning plan. In my imaginery school where all photogrpahy is banned I forgot to mention that this does not apply to me, and I will be the official photographer (all kit bought via expenses and I clearly need the best available as it is for photos of your precious children so you don't mind do you :) )
 
Daryl said:
Get back to the point of thread..

you are all missing an oppertunity to make some money here and get into your school and do a job.. and photograph your kids to boot.
Click to expand...

But I have no desire to be a pro photographer, full or part time, I just want photo's of my child not everyone else's. So yes I agree there may be an opportunity for a pro to make a bit of money but then again, back to the op's point, that should not be at the detriment of the parents being able to take their own photo's of their child surely ie, go in there and take the pro shots/dvd but don't ban the parents to give you/the school a captive audience for your product.
 
cornishboy said:
You are all clearly very lucky that you do not foster children who are subject to a court order and who would be in danger of having their placement ruined should their picture be placed up on facebook or the internet. You are clearly also very lucky that you did not send your children to the nursery in portsmouth where the nursery nurse was photographing children and sending them to a paedophile ring. Perhaps when entering into a job at a children's centre with a phone to respect their wishes you could have left your phone in the car? It may also be the case that having spent 2 weeks ensuring your little angels have learnt lines and are ready to perform, the school were just hoping you would come and watch the play rather than firing off hundreds of flashes in the desperate hope of taking a picture in focus.
In the good old days people accepted that schools did not make rules up just for fun but had some underlying reason for it which didn't need to be explained in explicit detail to every parent. Unfortunately nowadays parents think they have a right to question everything schools do, and should be able to have a say in running the place.
Do all the teachers out there a favour, hear your child read every night, help them with their homework, and support the school in doing a very difficult job, and please stop moaning.
Click to expand...

I know this is a valid reason used and one people often don't think about. At my kids school they do allow photographs so I'm not sure if the children who can't be photographed are left out or not.
 
Looking at some of the spelling mistakes in this post it would be better if schools concentrated on teaching the children the basics and not worrying about cameras.

My take is a school is entitled to make and enforce any rule it wants if it is for the well-being of the children.

If parents don't like it remove your child and place them in another school which will most likely have the same rules.
 
Then get the school to book one and problem solved.

Foster kids must be protected and then you parents can buy what you want , job done.

The foster kids get pics taken and can be held back from sale and public view.

jeez Life is simple humans complicate everything.

I just think you all love moaning for the sake of it. For and against... It's some old wives club... ?take that back.... they would not moan this much.
 
waiting for what, how is finding a photo of you relevant? You clearly display your website with full name which would easily lead to finding out things but what does that prove?
 
It wa said that photos of children could easily be found on Facebook, if that is so, then why has no-one found me to prove this point.
 
this has got seriously out of hand, laws and the government are becoming more and more anti-photography yet allow the paparazzi to stalk celebrities and also watch us through CCTV constantly.

it's how you perceive the treat, is it even a threat? I personally don't think so because thankfully not a large percent of photographers ARE paedophiles, even the suggestion that they are is walking on thin ice territory, where do you draw the line when the media 'facts' are so distorted?

problem=reaction + cause and effect... that's exactly what the police want just so they can take more rights away
 
How are the police involved in rights decisions/issues exactly?
 
artyman said:
It wa said that photos of children could easily be found on Facebook, if that is so, then why has no-one found me to prove this point.
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe because your name is not listed with the photo? Or maybe because nobody can be bothered as it doesn't prove anything?
 
symmetricalOCD said:
this has got seriously out of hand, laws and the government are becoming more and more anti-photography yet allow the paparazzi to stalk celebrities and also watch us through CCTV constantly.

it's how you perceive the treat, is it even a threat? I personally don't think so because thankfully not a large percent of photographers ARE paedophiles, even the suggestion that they are is walking on thin ice territory, where do you draw the line when the media 'facts' are so distorted?

problem=reaction + cause and effect... that's exactly what the police want just so they can take more rights away
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the police or the government, it (the example in the op link) was simply a commercial decision backed up with spurious claims of "child protection"
 
Flash In The Pan said:
It has nothing to do with the police or the government, it (the example in the op link) was simply a commercial decision backed up with spurious claims of "child protection"
Click to expand...

Precisely. All the child protection stuff is just an excuse, if you're selling a DVD of the performance then it's going to be difficult to protect the identity of any vulnerable child/children without editing them out of the DVD which would frankly make the DVD pointless.
So lets assume the vulnerable children in the production have either been disguised or left out of the production to prevent them being discovered by whoever. What difference would it make if the parents were allowed to take photo's, loss of sales only. Simple.
 
PaulF said:
Precisely. All the child protection stuff is just an excuse, if you're selling a DVD of the performance then it's going to be difficult to protect the identity of any vulnerable child/children without editing them out of the DVD which would frankly make the DVD pointless.
So lets assume the vulnerable children in the production have either been disguised or left out of the production to prevent them being discovered by whoever. What difference would it make if the parents were allowed to take photo's, loss of sales only. Simple.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that a class of 30 kids parents buying a DVD each at say a tenner is an essential part of the school budget?
 
artyman said:
It wa said that photos of children could easily be found on Facebook, if that is so, then why has no-one found me to prove this point.
Click to expand...

Really, will you not give up on this?

Let me try and explain. I know your first name. How about, your parents names, your friends, your parents friends, when you were born, where you were born etc. etc. A person is not put on protection to avoid strangers, it is to avoid people they know and may well have held a position of trust.

Maybe try asking one of your mates to see if they can find a photo of you. That is a more accurate task.
 
ding76uk said:
Do you really think that a class of 30 kids parents buying a DVD each at say a tenner is an essential part of the school budget?
Click to expand...

No! Just the staff Xmas party :D
 
Byker28i said:
Originally Posted by boyfalldown
Additionally, assuming that I published that childs face somewhere, its one very big leap to assume that the person they were moved from would see and be able to place that photo's location. No more then say the risk of a press photo (inside or outside school)


Originally Posted by Ding76uk
It does happen. Not very often, but it does and the upheaval to a family because of this is not good for them.


Sorry excuse the laziness of not adding the quotes properly, but if it's all a big secret and details are not given, how do you know? From my experiences, it's always been a Chinese whispers, or really vague because those that know the details won't say anything, and so an over-reaction takes place - "Won't somebody think of the children".

I guess the real issue here is a proportionate response and there will always be a subjective judgement on where the line is drawn, which is why we often end up with these discussions.
Click to expand...

Do you work in a school as a member of senior leadership team? Otherwise you will be very unlikely to become privy to what goes on in a school.

They do not want the info to get out and the school are in deep poo from this happening when it does. It is not something that goes in the school newsletter etc.:bang:

If you look at the why. If a child is moved but the person looking does not know they have been, time will be spent searching in what has now become a safe area. It is equal to why people never know who is in witness protection etc.

I have seen a child moved from a school i taught in due to his location being found. It was not something the school had done, but it meant they were moved again for safety fears.
 
ding76uk said:
Do you work in a school as a member of senior leadership team? Otherwise you will be very unlikely to become privy to what goes on in a school.

They do not want the info to get out and the school are in deep poo from this happening when it does. It is not something that goes in the school newsletter etc.:bang:

If you look at the why. If a child is moved but the person looking does not know they have been, time will be spent searching in what has now become a safe area. It is equal to why people never know who is in witness protection etc.

I have seen a child moved from a school i taught in due to his location being found. It was not something the school had done, but it meant they were moved again for safety fears.
Click to expand...

Carl, how does the school manage kids with camera phones and facebook etc?
 
ding76uk said:
Do you work in a school as a member of senior leadership team? Otherwise you will be very unlikely to become privy to what goes on in a school.

They do not want the info to get out and the school are in deep poo from this happening when it does. It is not something that goes in the school newsletter etc.:bang:

If you look at the why. If a child is moved but the person looking does not know they have been, time will be spent searching in what has now become a safe area. It is equal to why people never know who is in witness protection etc.

I have seen a child moved from a school i taught in due to his location being found. It was not something the school had done, but it meant they were moved again for safety fears.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't explain why photos/videos taken by parents are more of a "risk" than those provided, for a fee, by the school....
 
ding76uk said:
Do you really think that a class of 30 kids parents buying a DVD each at say a tenner is an essential part of the school budget?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think anyone has said or implied that it is.
Pretty sure the pro's doing the video wouldn't be unless there's a profit in it though, do you?

You have not really explained how the video company can effectively protect vulnerable children while recording the show so I assume you have accepted that the child protection excuse (in the op's link) was bogus?
 
Splog said:
Carl, how does the school manage kids with camera phones and facebook etc?
Click to expand...

My school has them banned and all schools are looking at this as a measure due to issues with bullying of students but also of teachers. There have been issues of teachers photos being taken an put all over face books etc. with comments. They have also used videos in classes to make fun of the teacher etc. Not at where I work I must add, but it is a major issue they are looking to address nation wide.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
That still doesn't explain why photos/videos taken by parents are more of a "risk" than those provided, for a fee, by the school....
Click to expand...

As with any client on a commercial shoot, they are provided with the images. The child identified would be then either removed PP or photos involving those children would be edited out of the selections.

It allows the school to remove any problem photos. Pretty standard on any photo job.
 
PaulF said:
No, I don't think anyone has said or implied that it is.
Pretty sure the pro's doing the video wouldn't be unless there's a profit in it though, do you?

You have not really explained how the video company can effectively protect vulnerable children while recording the show so I assume you have accepted that the child protection excuse (in the op's link) was bogus?
Click to expand...

Video guy £300 for 3 hours work, not a bad little earner, even if you give 10% to school still £270 if 30 parents buy one.

It is one of those things, it may/does seem a little suspect, but unless you are in that school we will not know. It may be an overcautious head with a knee jerk reaction or it may be a more pressing issue. The thing to look at though is that a DVD film is harder for the average person to rip to youtube and also has copyright issues associated with it that can reduce the exposure.

I am not sticking up for anyone. My main reason for banning it during performance would be the same as any professional performance I have shot. It is distracting to the artist and to the audience to see flashes going off every few minutes and rather than gazing out to proud faces the kids stare out at camera phones and lenses.
 
ding76uk said:
Video guy £300 for 3 hours work, not a bad little earner, even if you give 10% to school still £270 if 30 parents buy one.

It is one of those things, it may/does seem a little suspect, but unless you are in that school we will not know. It may be an overcautious head with a knee jerk reaction or it may be a more pressing issue. The thing to look at though is that a DVD film is harder for the average person to rip to youtube and also has copyright issues associated with it that can reduce the exposure.

I am not sticking up for anyone. My main reason for banning it during performance would be the same as any professional performance I have shot. It is distracting to the artist and to the audience to see flashes going off every few minutes and rather than gazing out to proud faces the kids stare out at camera phones and lenses.
Click to expand...

It's never going to be £10 a DVD and 10% to the school though. It's going to be atleast double that. Which is not important . However it's yet another cost on top of everything else and not all parents can cope.

Your point about a see of flashes may hold some validity but to be frank who are you to say a parents photography is good enough or not?

I hear the argument about protecting vulnerable children, but the at the same time all you are achieving by coming over very high handed and allowing someone a commercial opportunity at my expense at the same time looses an awful lot of goodwill and makes a parent very cynical
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
It's never going to be £10 a DVD and 10% to the school though. It's going to be atleast double that. Which is not important . However it's yet another cost on top of everything else and not all parents can cope.

Your point about a see of flashes may hold some validity but to be frank who are you to say a parents photography is good enough or not?

I hear the argument about protecting vulnerable children, but the at the same time all you are achieving by coming over very high handed and allowing someone a commercial opportunity at my expense at the same time looses an awful lot of goodwill and makes a parent very cynical
Click to expand...

My thing about quality of photography is a professional photographer vs and iPhone. One will have a much better level of photograph and one is a grab shot, although I admit may have much more sentimental attachment. I think the money point is a very valid one.

I can understand cynicism, believe me I have plenty for the education sector. I also know what a school has to go through with protected children and have to look at one thing. Which will be the least hassle? The answer is simple, the one that covers the school the most.

I am not saying it is right, I am not saying it is fair, but it is easier to answer to questions from parents peeved off about problems, yet offer them a solution (albeit paid for) than to answer to government agencies about why you didn't do something right.

It is not really a school making a problem. They are reacting to the problems that could possibly happen if something went wrong. It is something that needs to be looked at and some definitive guidelines being handed to schools. This alleviates the issue of claim being placed at the headmasters door. It sounds like a cop out, but unfortunately, like so much these days it is an arse covering exercise. If there is no national set of rules then it means a head can be hauled over the coals for not following procedures, even though there is none in place.

Think it's time for me to bow out of this thread. I have said my piece and hopefully it is balanced, but I don't want to start to repeat myself. I do enough of that teaching every day:D
 
ding76uk said:
Video guy £300 for 3 hours work, not a bad little earner, even if you give 10% to school still £270 if 30 parents buy one.
Click to expand...

I wish that it was only 3 hour's work.... Then again, I only ever did it properly, three cameras and decent audio, unlike some of the "crash zoom" uncle bobs out there...

Unless you're terrible at it though, you can usually sell way more than 30 though. 10% is a low kickback though.


Child protection isn't an issue that's going to go away, and there probably should be some form of national guidance, in the same manner that the scout association issues, but even then busybodies will be busybodies and the daily mail will continue to run scaremongering crap. The last thing that a headteacher wants to do is make the headlines, they want to get on providing education.

Daryl's posted the best solution all round tbh... Even if you don't want to charge (though you really might as well, even if its for the school needs fund...)

Why not shoot some special group shots of the kids on the stage at the dress reversal or similar? Or even some normal stage photos during the dress reversal, then edit them and get them printed up at Asda for the parents to see? Get a couple of each printed, pin them up in reception with a donation box for a quid or two a shot. Who knows, you might even get a wedding booking or two from it if that's your thing.

You'll get far better photos, have fun, it means you can watch the play with your eyes rather than through a viewfinder, the kids will love having a 'proper photo shoot', etc. Serious win win :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks to Carl for joining me in trying to offer a schools point of view. I would also offer that as Dave has said I always take a set of pictures during the days before the performance, and then charge the parents for the cost of the disc -usually a quid. They get the pictures of their child, I avoid any protection issues and hopefully they sit and watch the performance and we don't let them take the pics. No-ones rights have been excessively curbed all the children have been protected and I get to practice my photography!
 
As a parent and a photographer I found that if I was trying to take photographs I actually missed out on the performance.

Memories are good, but they don't always have to be photographic
 
If it prevents a dozen or more parents ruining the performance with flash, noisy AF, beeps and cheesy fake shutter sounds, and bright LCD screens, then hurrah for that.
 
well if they were good enought then you wouldnt need a flash just use the camera settings like ISO and Apature to get a decent picture
ive not got to that stage
but i would take my camera to catch some moments or set it to video and record it

thats if schools still do plays by then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top