taking photos of children

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

Women never used to be able to vote either, maybe we should go back to those times? :lol:

The world changes - unfortunately for as much good as the internet has done, there's a whole world of bad it feeds, too.
 
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.


I have no idea how old you are but my parents were never asked either but the fact is now you are so you have the right to say YES OR NO.


Sorry this has gone off post and I think everything has been said, so really it is over to the op to come back when the police have been in touch.
 
yes women never used to be able to vote now they can

but


it is their choice whether to or not, they dont have to.
 
And you expect every parent of every child, the world over to become paranoid just because the internet exists?

You can find plently of pics of scantily clad kids in the latest M&S catalogue!

I'm suggesting that people actually apply some balanced logic to it.

So yes, I agree, lets see what the OP comes back with :)
 
And you expect every parent of every child, the world over to become paranoid just because the internet exists?

You can find plently of pics of scantily clad kids in the latest M&S catalogue!

I'm suggesting that people actually apply some balanced logic to it.

So yes, I agree, lets see what the OP comes back with :)

Exactly, nail on head there Ali. The whole world's gone paranoid over this type of thing.
 
I have no idea how old you are but my parents were never asked either but the fact is now you are so you have the right to say YES OR NO.

Do you appreciate why you're asked by schools? It's not to keep you happy, it's to protect the school from parents who are unable to see an innocent use of a picture?

Do you know that there are almost no pictures of school plays anymore? All those memories will now fade. My personal view is that this is not progress.

Just because you can put a brick through a window and rob a shop does not mean that all bricks should be controlled.

Just because schools ask permission to use pictures it does not follow that everyone else must too. Your reasoning is flawed.
 
I am an ICT teacher and work in several schools.

Although not now I have, in the past , been responsible for school websites and that has involved posting pictures of children. It became a bit of a minefield with all kinds of different rules. In the end mostly no photographs from which a child could be identified and no names.

Many schools now insist on consent forms signed by parents specifying whether their children can be photographed or not or under what circumstances an for what usage.

In practice this means that in any situation where a photgraph is to be taken you have to remember which children apply in which category, who will have to be removed and not appear. Often in the end it's just best not to bother.

Oddly enough despite all the hoo ha especially with rgard to websites and children's faces appearing with or without names, our local papers are constantly publishing identifiable pictures of children, with their names and thier schools.

The end result of this is rather like the religious situation in some of the schools I teach in. There are parents who, usually on religious grounds, object to halowwe'en. Because they won't allow their children to be involved, there are one or two schools which no longer acknowledge hallowe'en at all.

Any teachers out there who have used Granny's Garden ( a simple computer adventure game) will know that a minor character is The Witch. Each year I have to check with class teachers whether I will be able to use it in case there are parents who object, again on religious grounds, to the inclusion of the witch character.

This of course means that the children who would like to use the program or would like to be involved in Hallowe'en don't get the option.

This has wandered slightly off topic but the issues remain the same.

In the case raised by the OP there are two issues,

1 legal fact, which generally is established in a court of law
2 people's sense of moral justice

The two often do not coincide
 
i would say without seeing where the pictures are published and in what context
its all conjecture
you just have to say photographing children and the worst is assumed.


same as bomb scare.
they called in the bob disposal here years ago when some shopper said there was a bomb outside debenhams,it was a bag of mince pies.but once someone said its a bomb that was it.they actually blew them up!
then i got arrested when i asked if Felix was coming the military bomb disposal [i worked with them in N.I.] i happened to have a s/h camera with me which i had just bought of a policemen otherwise i was done for as they said i set it up.

my point being just because someone says something dosent make it so but mud sticks

oh and i signed the officila secrets act as well
 
Do you appreciate why you're asked by schools? It's not to keep you happy, it's to protect the school from parents who are unable to see an innocent use of a picture?

Do you know that there are almost no pictures of school plays anymore? All those memories will now fade. My personal view is that this is not progress.

Just because you can put a brick through a window and rob a shop does not mean that all bricks should be controlled.

Just because schools ask permission to use pictures it does not follow that everyone else must too. Your reasoning is flawed.



Yes I am aware I am being asked to cover the school.

As for the pics of school plays ect my sons school and the schools around have no objection at all to photos or videos of plays/ assemblies / sports ect so that maybe such where you live but not where I live.

My son is six and i have video and photos of everything he has done including all plays ect so no my memories will not fade
 
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.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't think it would take the police too long to come up with their response.

You "Hello, Police. I have a neighbour over the road who is quite legally taking pictures and doing absolutely nothing wrong. Would you go round to his house and ask him to stop it please?"

Police "Ermmm, NO!!"

You "Hello, Is that the news desk of my local paper? I have a story for you. One of my neighbours is taking photos legally. Did you hear that? He's doing something legal. Can you get it on the front page tonight?

News Editor "Ermmm, NO!!"
 
:bonk: i am bored with this now.

I hope the OP gets the photos taken of the website successfully maybe she could pm me with the outcome as all this thread has done is undermine her as a caring loving concerned mum.
 
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.


Why have you jumped to assume that I would see you as a pervert? AliB has mentioned facebook. In the 60s and 70s things were a lot different. The other day I shot some portraits for someone, somewhere in the UK. The reason I have not mentioned where is because she is in hiding, starting a new life miles from her ex husband. She showed me the photographs of herself beat to a pulp by him. It turns out he had a history of beating up women and she was the first to testify against him. Her testimony put him inside.

Photographs of her children on facebook or any other site might well lead him to her. How important are your rights as a photographer to take whatever you want when it might lead to such things when just the courtesy of asking would be the answer


stew
 
Unless we can look at the website in question then any comments as to the intentions of this photographer are rather meaningless. There are two sides to every story.
 
Personally I'm more concerned about the comments shes making with the photos, if they are threats then theres grounds for legal action there, it would seem the police should deal with that, but it's probably worth contacting your lawyer. Did the police sieze her computer? thats fairly common in these situations, if they didn't it might suggest they know she's harmless or batty.
My advise is let your children play somewhere else, or maybe erect a fence or something to block her view, if your a council or housing tennent complaining to them might also produce a result, there may be rules about annoying neighbours or something. I'd advise against a confrontation, maybe a letter telling her your concerned about the photos shes taking and asking her to stop, face to face could turn ugly (she may be barking mad for all you know) and getting in a scrap in the street is only going to make things worse. Wayne
 
Why have you jumped to assume that I would see you as a pervert? AliB has mentioned facebook. In the 60s and 70s things were a lot different. The other day I shot some portraits for someone, somewhere in the UK. The reason I have not mentioned where is because she is in hiding, starting a new life miles from her ex husband. She showed me the photographs of herself beat to a pulp by him. It turns out he had a history of beating up women and she was the first to testify against him. Her testimony put him inside.

Photographs of her children on facebook or any other site might well lead him to her. How important are your rights as a photographer to take whatever you want when it might lead to such things when just the courtesy of asking would be the answer


stew

I was not going to post anymore but well said.
 
:bonk: i am bored with this now.

I hope the OP gets the photos taken of the website successfully maybe she could pm me with the outcome as all this thread has done is undermine her as a caring loving concerned mum.

Concerned about what though? Lets face it we're speaking about potential P****'s. Given that, according to statistics, most abuse happens within the home, by a person known and trusted by the victim, maybe what we should really be speaking about is banning any form of contact with children by:

Uncles
Fathers
Aunts
Mothers
Brothers
Sisters
Cousins
Grandparents
Neighbours
Friends
Anybody else.
 
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't think it would take the police too long to come up with their response.

You "Hello, Police. I have a neighbour over the road who is quite legally taking pictures and doing absolutely nothing wrong. Would you go round to his house and ask him to stop it please?"

Police "Ermmm, NO!!"

You "Hello, Is that the news desk of my local paper? I have a story for you. One of my neighbours is taking photos legally. Did you hear that? He's doing something legal. Can you get it on the front page tonight?

News Editor "Ermmm, NO!!"
Alternativly
You is that the local news desk? theres a p*** in my street taking pics of kids.

Sit back and wait for mob with burning torches. Wayne
 
Concerned about what though? Lets face it we're speaking about potential P****'s. Given that, according to statistics, most abuse happens within the home, by a person known and trusted by the victim, maybe what we should really be speaking about is banning any form of contact with children by:

Uncles
Fathers
Aunts
Mothers
Brothers
Sisters
Cousins
Grandparents
Neighbours
Friends
Anybody else.

:bang:AGREED THAT IS THE STATISTIC GIVEN TO US. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THAT ARE NOT RELATED .
AND THERE ARE MANY AND THATS ONLY THE ONES WE HEAR ABOUT.

Have kids and you always put their safety first end of.
 
Have kids and you always put their safety first end of.

Obviously you do jolsterj, I'm not suggesting for one second you don't, but according to the data that's not always the case.
 
A lot of people have mentioned so far that it depends on the the type of website the pictures have been posted on, the context that the pictures are used in or the context of the comments made.

The OP has stated that she's only seen the pictures posted on Flickr and Bebo. I don't use either of these sites but I'm not aware of them being used by peadophiles and perverts to spread their filthy pictures. Add to that the fact that the OP has failed to mention what the actual content of the pictures is then I'd draw the conclusion that they pictures are totally innocent but she just objects to the fact they her child appears in them.

I'm all in favour of striking down hard on people taking inappropriate photos and using photos in an inappropriate manner but the OP has said nothing to suggest this is the case at all. In fact it is quite the opposite, she has stated she's done nothing about it at all. She's not spoken to the neighbour in question and she she's not asked the police to look in to it so I suspect that we've blown this all totally out of proportion. The OP is clearly concerned but only concerned enough to ask a question on an internet forum. A question she now regrets asking. Hopefully she has now realised the reasonable solution would be to speak to the neighbour.
 
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.


eeerm I did.. I made it quite clear that there is no law against taking pictures of children. its so simple it doesnt need anyhting else

your effort of help was missleading to the extreme and would give false hope. I felt that needed pointing out to the OP which was also meant as help to her...

sorry if it upset you. wasnt my intention .. only to try and make it clear for the OP :)
 
The OP is clearly concerned but only concerned enough to ask a question on an internet forum.

Not everyone is the same my friend.. some people think asking a whole bunch of profesionals is a good idea... :)
 
As for the pics of school plays ect my sons school and the schools around have no objection at all to photos or videos of plays/ assemblies / sports ect so that maybe such where you live but not where I live.


That's an unusually enlightened view and I'm encouraged. I have heard many stories locally of that not being allowed. It's tragic.

artona said:
Why have you jumped to assume that I would see you as a pervert?

I don't actually know. I think it's that the constant outrage at people taking pictures perfectly legally makes me nervous to do it. Oddly most of the nerves are associated with not wishing to cause offense! I take great pains to ensure that it is clear that I am taking pictures, nothing covert or furtive and always treat enquiries politely.

I apologise if I was applying a sterotype to you in the way I resent one being applied to me by some members of the public. It is hard in this world of media-hyped sensitivity to maintain perspective.

AliB has mentioned facebook. In the 60s and 70s things were a lot different. The other day I shot some portraits for someone, somewhere in the UK. The reason I have not mentioned where is because she is in hiding, starting a new life miles from her ex husband. She showed me the photographs of herself beat to a pulp by him. It turns out he had a history of beating up women and she was the first to testify against him. Her testimony put him inside.

That story is tragic and horrific. However I don't see how it relates to my post. Personally I rarely post recognisable images on the web (mostly it's architecture and landscape) and always delete images when approached politely.

As it is, if it is at all possible I avoid children being in shot (this is a shame as they often make the best candid portraits as childish expressions are far more extreme) simply to avoid uncomfortable discussions.

Anyhoo, so OT it's untrue. On the original subject I truly hope there is an amicable solution. IMHO best achieved by a calm and sensible dialogue and not via legal entities. These should be a last and not first resort.
 
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''
.

So let me get this straight, if the police (ie the law) do not come up with whatever answer you want, you will then take it on your own back to let the papers loose on someone who has done nothing wrong.

And you are saying what they are doing is not right. Have you any idea how much going to the papers with this sort of unfounded allogation will wreck someones life?
 
And you are saying what they are doing is not right. Have you any idea how much going to the papers with this sort of unfounded allogation will wreck someones life?


The paper would only run it if there was wrongdoings

If someone wants to take pics of other peopels kids and put them on a website with nasty remarks then to be honest they deserve all they get.. IMHO
 
[Apologies for this off topic bit but I couldn't let it slide]
Kipax and Syx..
[...]
Realspeed
Way out of line there mate. :nono:

All we have said is that you've presented opinon as fact. I'm no legal expert and have made no claim to be so but it's pretty clear that you aren't either. I've made no suggestions to help because I don't know the correct answer, and so I do not want to introduce confusion - much as you have done. Whilst I may not know the correct legal standpoint, I am smart enough to realise that what you have said comes from your own viewpoint and has no reference - therefore shouldn't be stated as fact.

My career choice is my own, and bringing it up in discussion is irrelevant. Whilst you berate me for working for a retail company, I'm sure it's very different to what you assume. I also love my job - the title sounds boring even to me, but it's just a title. Who are you to look down on me for what I do? I freely volunteer my career information because I'm happy to do so.
Interesting aside that you've mentioned the official secrets act as I signed this back in 1999 for a different role with BAE - what are you trying to prove? That somehow a legal document means you're better than me? I highly doubt that! :lol:

[And back on track...]
Unless we can look at the website in question then any comments as to the intentions of this photographer are rather meaningless. There are two sides to every story.
I'm in agreement here. There has been very little effort made to determine the context of these photos, which the OP has clearly seen and so should know. Now it would appear that they are being taken in a manner which is causing concern, but we cannot say for certain whether this concern is justified!
 
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

Wise words :clap:

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

Unwise words :nono:

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.

Rude words :shake:
 
again its all about context.

how many times have you ever said "oh i could kill him for doing that.." etc? doesnt mean youre actually going to go out and bump them off, its USUALLY just a turn of phrase.

:gag:

Theres a difference to saying it harmlessly in conversation and posting it in writing with a photo of your subject/target. Wayne
 
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

sits back with lots of popcorn and waits for another round of :boxer: regarding taking pics of children.

:shake:


6 pages in and im running out of popcorn......................and the will to live:bonk:
 
Yeah, this is getting old now, and going round in circles with more and more abuse being thrown in for good measure :(
 
i am afraid I do have the right I was referring to my sons school.

You still don't!!!!

Even if the photo was taken on private property all the property owners can do is remove the photographer. They cannot in any way, shape or form force the photo to be deleted/unused
 
You still don't!!!!

Even if the photo was taken on private property all the property owners can do is remove the photographer. They cannot in any way, shape or form force the photo to be deleted/unused



you seem to keep misunderstanding me, and I am not saying it again and again. Re read my previous posts properly.

but whatever you reply i wont be replying again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top