taking photos of children

Status
Not open for further replies.
if you've found the alleged website
and have a genuine concern
approach the ISP and bring it to their attention
 
Is it possible to have a link to the site?
 
haggis said:
Censorship without due cause or proof?!
Click to expand...

No, not really :) As I said, the legalities are not the issue here! I'm suggesting the OP informs those that control the web site that they have pictures of her children. If the web site take the pics down? then it may help her in her situation?
 
Splog said:
No, not really :) As I said, the legalities are not the issue here! I'm suggesting the OP informs those that control the web site that they have pictures of her children. If the web site take the pics down? then it may help her in her situation?
Click to expand...

If the person posting the pictures on the website is doing it legally then why would the ISP take the pictures down? They'd have no reason to do so.
 
-Rob- said:
If the person posting the pictures on the website is doing it legally then why would the ISP take the pictures down? They'd have no reason to do so.
Click to expand...

agreed, but the ISP confirms they're ok it might ease her mind?
 
To be honest I think the OP really needs to go talk with the neighbour. Whatever happened to good old face to face talking to our neighbours. If that goes wrong or the neighbour gets aggressive then she could have good reason to go to the police.
As someone else said you can't rely on the police to know the letter of the law as far as photography goes.
Hope she manages to get it resolved - and soon!
 
Get together with all the other affected parents and share the cost of REAL legal advice.:thumbs:
 
-Rob- said:
If the person posting the pictures on the website is doing it legally then why would the ISP take the pictures down? They'd have no reason to do so.
Click to expand...

If they leave the pics then its status quo i.e. nothing changes :)

If they take them down then problem lessened for the OP and a fellow Human can sleep a little easier :shrug:
 
First of all it it has been mentioned about the DATA protection act, this ONLY applies to businesses preventing them from passing on any information about suppliers/customers/ clients and companies should be registered under the act. Thats got that cleared away. I am registered under the Act so have all the revelent information.

Right next, back to the original question about the photographing of children, This can be a tricky one, it depends under what situation the photos were taken. If they were taken to provide photographic evidence of criminal activity,then anyone is allowed to take photos under those circumstances. If those photos were not presented to the authorities within a reasonable time period then it becomes suspicious and action should be taken. One of the problems here is to prove that the photos were not taken as photographic evidence. The original poster asking for advice is quite correct to have concerns and report it to the authorities for investigation.

Definately not to broadcast on a medium available to the general public without prior approval and permission.

However should photographs be taken of specific children, or easily identified children, then the parent/guardian should be approached first to obtain written permission stating the purpose for which the photos are going to be used.

The other situation is if the children happened to be part of a general street scene/fun fair or similar ,where it would be impossible to get a photo which didn't include children as part of the overall picture. This would normally be accepted and not come under suspicion even if made available on a public medium.

Where the parent/guardian is present when the photographs are taken, then if the photographer is approached at the time to raise an objection, the photograph can be removed without causing distress to either party. If the parent/guardian is present when the photograph is taken but doesn't make a complaint,then normally it would be deemed that the parent/guardian approved of the photograph being taken.

Right now for the CCTV question, these bits of equipment are in place to protect property if on private ground or operated by approved authorities for street crimes. As such they are not there to photograph children as such as the main subject, and if recorded by electronic means they can be held used as evidence and are generally not
deemed to be used for illegal purposes.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
First of all it it has been mentioned about the DATA protection act, this ONLY applies to businesses preventing them from passing on any information about suppliers/customers/ clients and companies should be registered under the act. Thats got that cleared away. I am registered under the Act so have all the revelent information.

Right next, back to the original question about the photographing of children, This can be a tricky one, it depends under what situation the photos were taken. If they were taken to provide photographic evidence of criminal activity,then anyone is allowed to take photos under those circumstances. If those photos were not presented to the authorities within a reasonable time period then it becomes suspicious and action should be taken. One of the problems here is to prove that the photos were not taken as photographic evidence. The original poster asking for advice is quite correct to have concerns and report it to the authorities for investigation.

Definately not to broadcast on a medium available to the general public.

However should photographs be taken of specific children, or easily identified children, then the parent/guardian should be approached first to obtain written permission stating the purpose for which the photos are going to be used.

The other situation is if the children happened to be part of a general street scene/fun fair or similar ,where it would be impossible to get a photo which didn't include children as part of the overall picture. This would normally be accepted and not come under suspicion even if made available on a public medium.

Where the parent/guardian is present when the photographs are taken, then if the photographer is approached at the time to raise an objection, the photograph can be removed without causing distress to either party. If the parent/guardian is present when the photograph is taken but doesn't make a complaint,then normally it would be deemed that the parent/guardian approved of the photograph being taken.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

not sure where you got all this from, but i don't think it is all correct
 
Sporty

I am not saying it is legally correct or not, apart from the DATA protection Act part. What I am pointing out is what would generally be considered reasonable action to be taken under different situation as a guide line under those circumstances.

Quote from your posting " for all you know she may be part of a neighbourhood watch " Unquote

If this were the case then there would be notices in the street and in front windows stating that,also meetings would be held by all those members to discuss local issues. So your presumption about neighbourhood watch I believe doesn't come into the equation.

Quote from the original poster " photo was taken behind a livingroom window,looking outside onto my front drive." unquote

This I would consider unreaonable except for the reasons I gave and the actions I would take.


Realspeed
 
The Data protection Act of 1998 covers

Appointment or Removals, pay ,discipline, superannuation, work management or other personal matters in relation to the staff of the data controller.

Data subjects are Staff including Volunteers, agents temporary and casual staff

Data classes are
Personal details , family, lifestyles, and social circumstances
educational and training details
employment details
financial details
racial or ethnic details
religious or other beliefs of similar nature
trade union membership
physical or mental health or condition

Receipients

Data subject themselves
relatives guardians or other persons associated with the data subject
education training and examination boards
suppliers providers of goods or services
financial organisations and advisers
central government
employment and recruitment agencies

Transfers

non outside the european economic area

ADVERTISING MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

purpose described

advertising or marketing, the business of the data controller ,activity, goods or services and promoting public relations in connection with that business oe activity

DATA subjects are

Customers and clients
Complaints , correspondents and enquiries
advisors, consultants and other professional experts

DATA classes are

personal details Family. lifestyles and social circumstances.

The above applies to
Part 1 of the act Staff administration
Part 2 advertising ,marketing and public relations
Part 3 accounts and records
part 4 Data controller,s free text description of purpose.

As I previously said it does NOT cover the subject in question, it only applies to businesses.

Data controllers not only have a registration number but also a security number as well

Realspeed
 
Whether it's legal or not, you've got to admit it's a bit odd that someone is photographing the children (and specifically the children) in what appears to be in a discreet manor.

I'm also guessing that if the neighbour were a man and not a woman the responses would be different, you'll probably deny this but you know it's true - the responses would be different. We aren't talking about a photographer being out and about doing candid street photography with kids being in the shot which I'd see as doing nothing wrong. It's the manner in which these photos are being taken and subsequently being posted publically with what we are told is negative comments by the neighbour.

I think any good parent would be right in showing some concern at this just in case, God forbid, that the neighbour takes things to another level :shake:
 
I always thought that if a photograph was being used publically with the main subject being a person under the age of 18 then parental concent must be sought?
 
gman said:
Whether it's legal or not, you've got to admit it's a bit odd that someone is photographing the children (and specifically the children) in what appears to be in a discreet manor.

I'm also guessing that if the neighbour were a man and not a woman the responses would be different, you'll probably deny this but you know it's true - the responses would be different. We aren't talking about a photographer being out and about doing candid street photography with kids being in the shot which I'd see as doing nothing wrong. It's the manner in which these photos are being taken and subsequently being posted publically with what we are told is negative comments by the neighbour.

I think any good parent would be right in showing some concern at this just in case, God forbid, that the neighbour takes things to another level :shake:
Click to expand...


:clap: Well said :thumbs:
 
I would advise against getting opinions on this matter on a public Internet forum. The only advice you should be taking is from an attorney or law enforcement officer. The Internet is a usually well-intentioned bastion of incorrect information, and will only serve to confuse and concern you more than you need be.

Simply call the authorities and find out what your rights are. It will save you a lot of headaches.

- CJ
 
realspeed said:
First of all it it has been mentioned about the DATA protection act, this ONLY applies to businesses preventing them from passing on any information about suppliers/customers/ clients and companies should be registered under the act. Thats got that cleared away. I am registered under the Act so have all the revelent information.

Right next, back to the original question about the photographing of children, This can be a tricky one, it depends under what situation the photos were taken. If they were taken to provide photographic evidence of criminal activity,then anyone is allowed to take photos under those circumstances. If those photos were not presented to the authorities within a reasonable time period then it becomes suspicious and action should be taken. One of the problems here is to prove that the photos were not taken as photographic evidence. The original poster asking for advice is quite correct to have concerns and report it to the authorities for investigation.

Definately not to broadcast on a medium available to the general public without prior approval and permission.

However should photographs be taken of specific children, or easily identified children, then the parent/guardian should be approached first to obtain written permission stating the purpose for which the photos are going to be used.

The other situation is if the children happened to be part of a general street scene/fun fair or similar ,where it would be impossible to get a photo which didn't include children as part of the overall picture. This would normally be accepted and not come under suspicion even if made available on a public medium.

Where the parent/guardian is present when the photographs are taken, then if the photographer is approached at the time to raise an objection, the photograph can be removed without causing distress to either party. If the parent/guardian is present when the photograph is taken but doesn't make a complaint,then normally it would be deemed that the parent/guardian approved of the photograph being taken.

Right now for the CCTV question, these bits of equipment are in place to protect property if on private ground or operated by approved authorities for street crimes. As such they are not there to photograph children as such as the main subject, and if recorded by electronic means they can be held used as evidence and are generally not
deemed to be used for illegal purposes.

Realspeed
Click to expand...


All the above is written in such a way that it comes accross as fact.. when it isnt.. in fact its mostly wrong.. Maybe you should point out that the above is what you think ? :)

We all know anyone can take pictures of kids.. The only issue here is morals.. personally i think its wrong to take pictures of other peoples kids and put them on the internet without them knowing (unless background part of scene blab blah)

But what i think only really applies to me... The laws apply to everyone and theres no law against it.

I cant remember who posted it but I think it was perfectly put when someone said... theres no law against jumping the que in the post office ... right minded people just don't do it.
 
KIPAX said:
All the above is written in such a way that it comes accross as fact.. when it isnt.. in fact its mostly wrong.. Maybe you should point out that the above is what you think ? :)
Click to expand...

Spot on there, there's very little fact in that statement but it is presented as such.

KIPAX said:
I cant remember who posted it but I think it was perfectly put when someone said... theres no law against jumping the que in the post office ... right minded people just don't do it.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that without the ability to queue we just wouldn't be British anymore! :lol:
 
Syx said:
Not to mention that without the ability to queue we just wouldn't be British anymore! :lol:
Click to expand...

Have been watching this thread, and not really known what to say about it.

Just sort of been an outsider.

However, I thought the post I would make would be off topic.

Queueing is possibly the best British trait, and I think possibly one of the best national traits in the world.
Unfortunately it goes hand in hand with complaining.

If someone pushes in, 90% of the people wouldn't say anything. As Michael Mcintyre says: "They think 'tw**.' but they say tut."

But, don't let me sidetrack the discussion! As you were :)
 
Syx said:
Not to mention that without the ability to queue we just wouldn't be British anymore! :lol:
Click to expand...


:lol: What takes the biscuit is when you have to wait in a queue on the telephone...when calling BT! It's a bloody phone company, taking calls should be their speciality!!!

Sorry, off topic yet again! :bonk:
 
Kipax and Syx

I notice that you havn't made any suggestions to help the original poster but criticise myself for at least making the effort to help. Maybe its the way I write which comes across as fact for which I apologise, but I speak and write as I think blunt as it maybe.

Obviously you know what is correct in your posting quote "All the above is written in such a way that it comes accross as fact.. when it isnt.. in fact its mostly wrong.." unquote and again quote " Spot on there, there's very little fact in that statement but it is presented as such" unquote

So why not give your professional expert knowledge to someone who is in desperate need of it, or do you charge for your legal knowledge?

I will be most interested in a professional input from both you qualified legal experts.


OPPS MY MISTAKE SORRY

Sorry SYX I see that you are employed by Tesco as a technical Analyst, a worthy profession and Kipax your profession is a sports photographer again another worthy profession. Both of which no doubt you excel in.

Oh and before you say about mine I have already informed the original poster of as much of my background as I am allowed, which involves the Official Secrets Act which I signed back in 1972 and lasts for life

Realspeed
 
As has been said, I would get some proper legal advice - I would be just as worried if I was in this situation. I don't like the sneaky way she's taking pictures and would not want any pictures let alone the names of my kids posted online, I am not at all suprised at your reaction. She could just be a deranged old maid who doesn't like children, but it's worth finding out where you stand with it, and finding a way to put a stop to it.

I know you don't want to, but honestly it might be worth trying to talk to her, good luck :)
 
Has anyone considered that the kids might be up to no good and the lady taking the photographs is recording their bad behavior? Just a thought.
 
Badger UK said:
Has anyone considered that the kids might be up to no good and the lady taking the photographs is recording their bad behavior? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Maybe so .... but still, you don't put pictures of children with their names onto the internet without permission (if you have any decency!)
The info could easily fall into the wrong hands.

If the kids are up to no good, she should 'man up' and speak to the parents about it, or make a complaint to the council/police.
 
Firstly, I'll apologise, I haven't read the rest of the thread since this morning when I had to go to uni.. but just to respond to this;

Splog said:
Irrelavent... The OP is uncomfortable with the pics on the site so I suggested telling the web site owners so! It may get the pics taken down and could therefore help with th OP's problem :)
Click to expand...

It's very relevant. As if they were then taken down that would create another problem. Namely, that the photographer has had her perfectly lawful images removed from the site.
 
Kev M said:
Erm, because we can and it's not illegal?:shrug: Seriously why does everyone assume that a photo of a child is going to be used for something sinister? What a sad, sad country we live in.
Click to expand...

Thats not a good enough answer. If what you are doing is totally legal and above board why are you hiding yourself and trying to take their pictures without us knowing. If you could not explain why, having done the decent thing and ask you I would then call the police.

Of course if you explained that you were a top photographer on Talk Photography and you were after some candid shots for an upcoming comp then I would be flattered that you thought my daughter a worthy subject.

On the other hand after the highly publicised stories, like the one of the little girl stolen from Portugal all good parents are vigilant these days. If you see that as being sad then you are probably right but I actually see hiding from view taking photographs of my children without my permission as being rude. As it happens my first thoughts were not that they were going to be used for anything sinister but simply the bad manners being displayed

stew
 
realspeed said:
Oh and before you say about mine I have already informed the original poster of as much of my background as I am allowed, which involves the Official Secrets Act which I signed back in 1972 and lasts for life
Click to expand...

So you're a BT engineer working on Government sites?? :shrug:
 
Phew! Just read this all the way through and I have a child and I would be appauled if I found a photo of him on the internet with his name that I have not agreed to.

I would wait for the police to come up with their response and then if it is not the answer I want I would go to the papers.

I am sorry I dont care that it is, or is not illegal, it is just not ''right''


I would be equally unhappy if it were a picture of me which is why I dislike candid 'street' photography.
 
So someone on facebook posts their kid's school photo with the names of all the class on it. Would you all be demanding it's removal then?

If I don't get the answer I want from the Police I would go to the papers?

With what? No law has been broken so why would you be contacting the Police and wasting their time? Demanding that "Something be done" when nothing illegal has been done in the first place?

Some of my favourite books of photography from the 60's and 70's have loads of pics of kids playing in the street. It's what we did back then, we went out to play. They didn't have model release forms and parental agreements, they were published, albeit in book form. Did any harm come to the kids from it? It's not their souls you are stealing when you take a photograph.

And yes I do have one, my stepdaughter, she's blonde and six years old and I could be quite paranoid about her safety but I've posted pics of her myself. It's normal. But there she is, on the internet for anyone to see.

It's not illegal to take pics of anyone in a public place. Just think of all the social history we would lose if that little gem was lost to us all overnight.
 
Posting pics with permission is fine as long as you know where they are.

and i have posted pics of my son on line

a group school photo would be fine but no i wouldnt want his name up there and what school it was.


I would not have to demand its removal the headmaster would do that for me .

we all have to sign forms at the beginning of every year regarding any photos taken at school and where and where not you agree to have them placed.
 
I used to pay a lot of sport at school and was frequently published in the local paper, school, year, class, name. The whole lot. Usually wearing sports kit too.

Should we scrap that idea too?
 
AliB said:
I used to pay a lot of sport at school and was frequently published in the local paper, school, year, class, name. The whole lot. Usually wearing sports kit too.

Should we scrap that idea too?
Click to expand...




certainly not!

what I have said and you seem to miunderstand is at my sons school the parent has to sign a consent form for pics to be used in that way.

parent signs the form its all good.

parent does not sign the form and no pics are used.

not rocket science.
 
artona said:
Of course if you explained that you were a top photographer on Talk Photography and you were after some candid shots for an upcoming comp then I would be flattered that you thought my daughter a worthy subject.
Click to expand...

But what if it was me, a poor photographer that was just taking candid portrait shots in order to get better at it?

I'd no doubt offer you a copy of the image if you were being nice, though as I'm a 40 year old single male I suspect that you'd already have decided that I was a pervert and things would be turning unpleasant.
 
My parents were never even asked!

That's my point jolsterj.

It's perhaps the fact that we do now have consent forms for everything that people are led to believe they have rights that simply don't exist. Those forms are only there to cover the headmaster's backside and carry more weight with Ofstead than anywhere else.

I'm simply making the point that often were people think the line is drawn is quite different to where it actually IS drawn.
 
AliB said:
So someone on facebook posts their kid's school photo with the names of all the class on it. Would you all be demanding it's removal then?

If I don't get the answer I want from the Police I would go to the papers?

With what? No law has been broken so why would you be contacting the Police and wasting their time? Demanding that "Something be done" when nothing illegal has been done in the first place?

Some of my favourite books of photography from the 60's and 70's have loads of pics of kids playing in the street. It's what we did back then, we went out to play. They didn't have model release forms and parental agreements, they were published, albeit in book form. Did any harm come to the kids from it? It's not their souls you are stealing when you take a photograph.

And yes I do have one, my stepdaughter, she's blonde and six years old and I could be quite paranoid about her safety but I've posted pics of her myself. It's normal. But there she is, on the internet for anyone to see.

It's not illegal to take pics of anyone in a public place. Just think of all the social history we would lose if that little gem was lost to us all overnight.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

What sort of website is it?
Is it a sinister one?
Is it one where people all gather together to look at pictures of kids, or are they bundled together with other photos.

Maybe this old woman is lonely, kids have grown up and left her, no grandkids. Perhaps she takes an innocent pleasure in seeing all the kids playing (I'm assuming, without reading the whole topic, that that's what she's taking pictures of), and just like a soc-doc-tog, she's just capturing these happy moments, completely innocently.

Maybe, rather than going to the police and trying to get her done over, or going to the papers and ending up with her house graffiti'd with 'p***', you should go and speak to her? (again, I'm assuming you haven't done)
Find out what she's taking photos of, why, and if you're uncomfortable with her posting pictures of your kids on the internet then ask her to remove them.

Obviously if she isn't kind and lonely, and in face just a strange, obsessed old woman, all guns blazing.

I have no kids since I'm only 18, and so this is all down to my opinion. But it's an unbiased one since I have no kids to change my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top