photographing children

Fuinseog

I was in the North recently at the Ulster American folk park and saw a sign stating 'you may photo your own children but not other children'. I never saw the likes in teh republic. is this OTT or a sign of the time swe live in? apparently in Britain if you take a photo and a child happens to be in the background you have to delete it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wouldn't be surprised - I remember there was some fuss a few months ago about a man taking a picture of his own son, and security in the area getting very aggressive.
Must look up the link

Fuinseog

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

hearsay. I was hoping to be enlightened.


I would have thought child protection here and in GB would be the same, yet the afformentioned signs at touristic sites are not the norm in ireland

Nevyn

Why would they be the same we are a separate soverin country?

There has been some changes in the law for sure, one of the new school policies which has some in effect to reflect that is that parents must sign a release for the child to be photographed in school actives esp if it is to be published even in the school newsletter and website.

Fuinseog

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why would they be the same we are a separate soverin country?

There has been some changes in the law for sure, one of the new school policies which has some in effect to reflect that is that parents must sign a release for the child to be photographed in school actives esp if it is to be published even in the school newsletter and website.

are we really a separtate country from Britain? but thats a digression.

I have heard about this new ruling. is it really necessary? personally I believe it leads to a culture of fear.

Nevyn

I am the legal guardian of my children, they need my permission to publish any photographs of my child, I don't think that is out of line at all.

wonderfulname

Fuinseog wrote: »

'you may photo your own children but not other children'. I never saw the likes in teh republic.

The republic is not any different. At my niece and nephews school things have changed massively over the past few years, there is no longer a newsletter filled with happy sports day pictures taken by proud parents, in fact cameras aren't allowed at sports day anymore, or any day for that matter. My niece goes to an afternoon drama camp thing and camcorders were not allowed during their play. In this instance the drama school were spinning legislation deemed to be protecting children for their own profit, selling videos of the performance for ten euro.
This is fear of pedophilia gone too far, People should be allowed hold memories such as these.

Saint Ruth

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Crazier things have happened:

Two children were taken away from their parents after a photo of a 12-month-old baby with his lips on his mother's nipple was developed at a local drug store and then reported to authorities by the shop's clerk. No experts were consulted, no evaluations were made, the children were simply whisked away and the parents charged with the second-degree felony of "sexual performance of a minor."

http://thebabybond.com/Breastfeeding%20Crime.html

wonderfulname

Saint Ruth, that is the most insane thing I've ever heard.

I hope that store clerk knows how much pointless suffering they brought on a family.. Fekin hell.

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope that store clerk knows how much pointless suffering they brought on a family.. Fekin hell.

Not their fault. They were only upholding the law.

Nevyn

The state of texas has the most uptight, rigid, fundemental christain laws about sex out of all america.

Fuinseog

to the best of my knowledge this thing about asking parents permission for school photos is only in primary or is it also secondary?

Nevyn

Secondary, had the parent's meeting for the induction of first years this week and the policy was mentioned and that parents would have to choose to sign a permission or not.

Sleepy

As far as I'm aware they're merely school rules rather than legislation. If your child is in public, or visible from a public place (e.g. your front garden which could be photographed from a public road), they can be legally photographed by anyone wishing to do so.

Any institution has the right to control photography within their own property e.g. school sports hall, church grounds but that's as far as the law goes IIRC.

There's been a few threads on this topic in the photography forum before.

LittleBook

It's happened several times in the US that children have been taken from their parents who've been reported by photo development shops for something as simple as a photo in the bath tub.

Even in the UK BBC newsreader (Julia Somerville) was arrested some years back when an employee of Boots chemist found photos of her daughter playing in the bath on a reel of film.

There's a case in the US now where a family who were wrongly accused and lost their children for a month (not to mention the untold colllateral damage) are suing Walmart claiming they completely over-reacted.

i like lamp

jesus seems to be a bit over the top!!

but then i dont really see the necessity for someone to take their childs pic in the bath anyway?

if someone has the means to print their own pictures in their own home with those little printers then fair enough, but dont be getting a stranger to develop those pics in a photo shop. They may seem innocent enough to most people, but to that one person preying on children they are gold dust and its just sickening to think that someone developing pictures might just make a second copy for themselves!!

caseyann

One of our neighbours takes photos of the kids.He uses flash so they see him taking them.
If thats against the law he could be in big trouble.
I just assumed he is photographer of sorts.
I did hear something about posting other peoples kids online as against the law.

i like lamp

caseyann wrote: »

One of our neighbours takes photos of the kids.He uses flash so they see him taking them.
If thats against the law he could be in big trouble.
I just assumed he is photographer of sorts.
I did hear something about posting other peoples kids online as against the law.

hmm i wouldnt be happy with a neighbour taking my childs picture unless there was a valid reason for it? does the neighbour have children the same age who are friends?

caseyann

i like lamp wrote: »

hmm i wouldnt be happy with a neighbour taking my childs picture unless there was a valid reason for it? does the neighbour have children the same age who are friends?

Nope him and his wife on own,I assume kids grown up.Not sure though as they live far end of road so dont know them.
He does take them from inside the house so like hiding in a way it would come across as.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am the legal guardian of my children, they need my permission to publish any photographs of my child, I don't think that is out of line at all.

Definitely not out of line. As an off topic aside, could this mean I can legally require "mates" to take down photos of me on facebook!?

vicecreamsundae

I think these are just rules/legislation for minors.
as far as i'm aware, when it comes to adults, if someone is in a public space and you take their picture, you have the rights to it, and the right to post it online.
so nope, if they took the photo of you they can post it -though i have always wondered what the deal is if someone else takes a photo on your camera, or vice versa. does the owner of the camera, or the taker of the photo have rights to the image?

back on topic, i think most of these rules are ridiculous. i don't think there is anything wrong with photographing other people's children, if they are fully clothed and just playing etc.
i think that rule itself sexualises children's bodies.

smelltheglove

That story is terrible saint ruth.

I had pictures developed years ago of my first child and in one image there was genitals showing, completely innocent, she was dressed and potty training or something but whetever way she moved, there was motion blur, you could see her bum, anyway the roll was developed for me. I used to give her daddy the rolls then so he could have them developed if he wanted and he did with this roll and he was cautioned by the chemist.]

Anyway with regard to the law, photography in public is legal, doesnt matter who it is off, 1 or 1001, if someone is in the public eye then there is nothing to stop them being potographed, as if they are in sight of a public area, i.e. not snooping through a window. Remember, public area, so a shopping centre, restaurant etc these are not public areas so you need to abide by the rules of the owner but streets, parks, fields etc are good to go for photographers. Even your front garden as it is in public eye.

Now as for uploading or printing or selling, images such as documentary or 'news' do not require model release, in a childs case parents permission, this is only required for commercial use, images can be uploaded without permission but I do believe that with kids it is good manners to ask. I actually get permission from a lot of my clients but rarely upload childrens images.

Mick Daly

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Two children were taken away from their parents after a photo of a 12-month-old baby with his lips on his mother's nipple was developed at a local drug store and then reported to authorities by the shop's clerk.

http://thebabybond.com/Breastfeeding%20Crime.html

The positives of a digital camera - don't have people looking at your photos.

Cookie_Monster

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am the legal guardian of my children, they need my permission to publish any photographs of my child, I don't think that is out of line at all.

not if they're in a public place they don't

Nevyn

I was talking about the school and photos taken in the school which is not public.

johnmcdnl

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am the legal guardian of my children, they need my permission to publish any photographs of my child, I don't think that is out of line at all.

right - the thing is that anyone has the right to take a photo of anything that is in view pretty much unless it's a army barracks or something like that that has laws against it... so i can take a photo of your house or your garden or your children that are in your garden... etc etc

a photographer also has the right to photo anyone walking down a public strett etc etc... simply because it is a "PUBLIC" space... it's not private property so you are free to photograph...

legal release forms and all that will only come into play if you intend to print the photos for publishing to make money as then you technically become a model... but as for a photographer who takes a photo in a public place of an old man or a child or anyone... the subject doesn't have to sign any form of release form or anything of the sort... the fact that your in a public place means your allowing others to see you/photograph you etc etc etc...

that's the law as far as I know...

metrovelvet

Is a school private property?

Mick Daly

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is a school private property?

Why would I not be able to photo a school, kids or no kids?

It might be weird but it isn't illegal.

johnmcdnl

Mick Daly wrote: »

Why would I not be able to photo a school, kids or no kids?

It might be weird but it isn't illegal.

You can take a photo of a school yes.. if your standing on the main road... if you set foot on the property without permission it's trespassing... but the fact that the school is visible means you can photograph it yes...

as for photographing children at a school... school's have these rules about no pictures because they're terrified of the mob that's out to get the pedophiles today and the huge influx of regulations that we're seeing today is just an attempt to make sure the school's have their backs covered just in case...

aidan24326

wonderfulname wrote: »

The republic is not any different. At my niece and nephews school things have changed massively over the past few years, there is no longer a newsletter filled with happy sports day pictures taken by proud parents, in fact cameras aren't allowed at sports day anymore, or any day for that matter. My niece goes to an afternoon drama camp thing and camcorders were not allowed during their play.

This is PC scaremongering nonsense. It's sad if you can't even take pictures of your kids now without being told you're breaking some law or other.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not their fault. They were only upholding the law.

Then bollox to the law.

Sleepy

When the schools refuse parents permission to film / photograph events I would immediately assume it's a fundraising ploy and disregard it.

mikemac

I volunteer at our local GAA summer camp.
It's great value too, 30 euro for a week and you get activities all day, trips and meet a few county stars if you're lucky. Lasts all day, try to find yourself a creche for 30 euro a week!
And all the Cadet cola you can drink

Every evening we have challenge games, usually ground hurling as the kids are under 10 and we're aiming on specific skills.
Older kids do more, we teach the low shoulder and the third man tackle, don't forget to get your retaliation in first!

Of course you have proud parents photographing the children pucking the sliotar and playing hard.

But to take photograhs, you need to approach a coach.
Not from me, I'm just a volunteer, you need permission from a coach as they have garda clearance so they have the authority here.

Why you ask?
The parish GAA club run it but it's subsidised by the school so the local hysterical parents on the school board of management and try to get involved in every comm-itt-ee set the rule.
They don't want people taking photos unless they know who they are.
Even the local newspaper journalist got challenged.

It's just kids playing hurling and gaelic and running around with a jersey and shorts for god's sake.
But you never know who is taking photos.......