Schools banning photography

gazfy said:
+2. (y)

I have to be honest and say it's one of the reasons why I am happy that my daughter is now growing up in Germany now rather than the UK. She is being allowed to have a proper childhood. Want to climb the trees in Kindergarten and now at break time at school? Not a problem. Parents want to photograph/video the kids at school shows, sportdays etc. Go ahead. Hell, I went to pick my daughter up from kindergarten a couple of years ago mid-summer, walked into the gated gardens to find all the kids running about naked playing with water pistols and hoses! This kindergarten is in a residential area surrounded by houses and flats that all look into the kindergarten. Can you imagine the outrage if this had been allowed to happened in the UK?
Click to expand...

That's how it should be, but if the Daily Fail find out you'll be reading "German kids being taught naked war games at sex camp".
 
Fair enough, but which parents have the greater rights, and why

They all have an equal right so the sensible solution is to ask that no pictures are taken during the production at which point the children who do not have permission are quietly removed and then all the others can have as many pics taken as you want. - Sports day is a bit more tricky though.
 
Big Andy said:
And I bet the kids had a great time with no hang ups fostered on them by overly protective adults. If people would look at the facts and ignore the hype there wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

Exactly Andy. The kids were loving it... and the couple of other parents that turned up the same time as I did thought it was brilliant. Nothing but smiles and laughter. (y)
 
In my job as a photographer and videographer, I've done a LOT of work with schools and the scout association / girl guides.

There is always an underlying nervousness around photography in schools - last thing any head teacher wants is a daily mail article about them - but overall, in my professional capacity, I've only had one case where we had a problem, and that was resolved with Photoshop, and due to a sole, stubborn parent.

I agree completely with the youth swimming board that comments in the article that photography at swimming events should probably be restricted, but as others have said - a nativity play? Are you really going to find a nonce after pictures of kids with teatowels on their heads?
On the other hand, some video companies, which yes, do give kickbacks to the school, will have in their contract that they are to be the only people allowed to film the show. I also think that there is a good argument for NOT allowing parents to take photos during such things - partly to let them enjoy it rather than through an LCD screen, but also to prevent flashes and parents standing up to get a shot etc distracting the kids.
I've worked essentially as a 'pool photographer' for many dance shows etc in this manner, and if anything, parents seem to have appreciated having great quality photos instead of their own point and shoot snaps.


As for the fostered or other very rare circumstances - yes, these do exist and there is a problem there - however in my experience both the teacher / leader / parent has a good idea of the situation, and also the child - I've had on a couple of occasions a quiet word asking me not to photograph a certain child. I can understand that this would be difficult or impossible or _actually_ potentially a breach of the oft quoted (almost always incorrectly) "data protection laws".

The CRB is a very flawed vetting scheme at the moment, and was due to be moved (doubtless with 90% of the cost already incurred) to a logical, constant checking based photoid system a month after the Tories came to power, but it was sadly one of the first cuts victims.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Because they pay your wages. :D
Click to expand...

You pay the wages of the employees of every service you use! When I worked for the LA it used to wind me to distraction. People would pass gas workers sat about chatting, ignore hotel / shop staff being lazy / unhelpful. But the mention of a council worker - in whatever context and everyone had a negative story / opinion:bonk:

I've worked in large and small organisations, in the public and private sector and I'll tell you categorically - the competence / work ethic / value for money issues are no different.
 
cornishboy said:
Fair enough, but which parents have the greater rights, and why

They all have an equal right so the sensible solution is to ask that no pictures are taken during the production at which point the children who do not have permission are quietly removed and then all the others can have as many pics taken as you want. - Sports day is a bit more tricky though.
Click to expand...

Agree. And this is more or less what I do for press shots. Oddly enough, for sports, even swimming and gym, there are hardly ever any problems. For some weird reason, nativity plays tend to be the worst. And gymkhanas have never, ever produced an objection.
 
Sonriendo said:
But why? How could Mr PD File harm your child with a photograph?
Click to expand...

Didnt say i agreed with it, but i could possibly see SOME point.
Being in my late 40's with kids in their early twenties, i find the paranoia pretty ridiculous.
The kind of stuff paedos are into, is so far removed from anything you could possibly shoot in ther school enviroment, i dont see why schools are going mental.
I am sure the media doesnt help.
As said by others, common sense has gone out of the window.
 
cornishboy said:
My point is, as a school we ask permission from parents to allow their children to be photographed. If one parent, for any reason refuses we are stuffed. Do we withdraw a child from a worthwhile educational activity because visiting parents might take their picture, or do we say no photos? We cannot win this debate, and will therefore will feel the wrath of parents whatever we do. Even we we make it clear photos are for personal use and should not be uploaded to the Internet, we know there will be parents breaking the rules, because they feel they have rights. Once the photo has been uploaded and tagged there could be problems. Like I said, schools are in an impossible situation here and would probably appreciate some understanding from parents. We are not going to argue with parets who do not give us permission, they have rights as well.
Click to expand...

I agree with a ot of your gripes, but the truth is that the answer is YES.

I'm a proper soft leftie, but when it comes to this level of political correctness - a line has to be drawn. Bigots can claim to be offended in order to further their agenda - idiots can dream up a reason to object to anything - they should be the people who have to suffer from their decisions. Not everyone else.

I understand that there are cases where children under protection orders have a reason not to be photographed - but with a little sensibility these issues could be sorted with a little compromise - a blanket ban on something within a school which is perfectly acceptable behaviour outside the school is just an over-reaction.
 
Sonriendo said:
But why? How could Mr PD File harm your child with a photograph?
Click to expand...

How would you feel about someone taking a photo of you in a swimming pool or state of undress without permission, taking it home, distributing it amongst their friends and sticking it on various websites for people to masturbate over? Then imagine that someone extra messed up finds this photo of you and recognises you from somewhere nearby and starts keeping an eye out for you and eventually spots you and starts keeping an eye on where you go and finds your place of work, the place you live, the people you care about.

If you can honestly tell me that this scenario doesn't bother you then I'm incredibly surprised, and regardless of how unlikely this is it is a possibility. So yes, Mr PD File can harm your child with a photograph.

I have been into plenty of private companies that ask you to leave your phone at reception for whatever reason and no one ever seems to question this.
 
As a grown up, you really like to see pictures of when you were a little kid and the stuff you did, it brings back lots of nice memories.
School plays, sports events, working on site are done in a easily controlled environment, asking to surrender your phone or not allowing photography just denotes a completely lack of knowledge of what the issues are. In the OP case, the school is declaring, that if he has a phone, he will have the chance to photograph kids because they are not supervised and he will be free to roam unchallenged.
For school plays it is easy to organize photo opportunities before and after the play, and a small chat before the play on what is expected regarding to photography. And of course proper supervision that there is no one acting in a suspicious manner in a discrete way.
 
TheLiege said:
How would you feel about someone taking a photo of you in a swimming pool or state of undress without permission, taking it home, distributing it amongst their friends and sticking it on various websites for people to masturbate over?
Click to expand...


I would be flattered - when I'd finnished laughing :LOL:


63/365 Biting the Bullet by Sonriendo, on Flickr

TheLiege said:
Then imagine that someone extra messed up finds this photo of you and recognises you from somewhere nearby and starts keeping an eye out for you and eventually spots you and starts keeping an eye on where you go and finds your place of work, the place you live, the people you care about.
Click to expand...

There is a possibility of this happening, but tbh it is so unlikely that it would not worry me.
 
Last edited:
artyman said:
when I was a child,
Click to expand...

That old chestnut. Life was so much more simple then wasn't it. :shrug:

It appears to be the answer to everything nowadays as far as kids are concerned.

The problem is, it's completely irrelevant. As far as this situation goes, the rules are set in place and the request is made not to take photographs. Observe the rules.

Maybe if people don't like it they should go and live in Germany!
 
cornishboy said:
My point is, as a school we ask permission from parents to allow their children to be photographed. If one parent, for any reason refuses we are stuffed. Do we withdraw a child from a worthwhile educational activity because visiting parents might take their picture, or do we say no photos? We cannot win this debate, and will therefore will feel the wrath of parents whatever we do. Even we we make it clear photos are for personal use and should not be uploaded to the Internet, we know there will be parents breaking the rules, because they feel they have rights. Once the photo has been uploaded and tagged there could be problems. Like I said, schools are in an impossible situation here and would probably appreciate some understanding from parents. We are not going to argue with parets who do not give us permission, they have rights as well.
Click to expand...

There is no right, not to be photographed in British law, nor of your children.
There is no requirement to ask permission to take a persons photograph.
In many situations it is common cutesy.
However you may not harass some one in the process.
It is illegal to to take indecent photographs of children. or to invade someones privacy where they can reasonably expect to be in private.
 
wibbly said:
That old chestnut. Life was so much more simple then wasn't it. :shrug:

It appears to be the answer to everything nowadays as far as kids are concerned.

The problem is, it's completely irrelevant. As far as this situation goes, the rules are set in place and the request is made not to take photographs. Observe the rules.

Maybe if people don't like it they should go and live in Germany!
Click to expand...

The rules are in place in some schools, in others they are not. In some schools children are not permitted to carry their phones, in others they are, and do take each others photographs.
The "rule" is arbitrary. and not based on a legal requirement.
 
I think in a place of education where there are a number of vulnerable children courtesy would be the least one could ask for. I would of thought adults would also have expected a school to be a private place.
As I have said previously if there is a court order in place preventing a child from associating with their natural family, the foster family can surely expect privacy etc?
 
Could I also not claim the school is private property and then subject to the rules of the people in charge (ie the head / governors)
 
My daughters school are fine about photography at events etc.
 
no one is proposing we should all be able to walk into a school and take photographs of whoever or whatever we like.

When we are invited in to an event, the expetation is that we can photograph what we have come to see.

Simples......
 
When we are invited in to an event, the expetation is that we can photograph what we have come to see.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't necessarily follow. A school isn't a public place, you are only there by invitation, and if that invitation is conditional you have no option but to comply.
Like it or not, the school is in loco parentis while you're kids are there, and that gives them all the rights of a parent during that time.
If they say no, thats the end of it.

Again, there's that naive assumption here that a pedophile is only interested in pictures of naked kids, which is wrong.

Then there's the thorny issue of in the example used here school plays, where some kids have a real phobia about cameras, my niece did, any hint of a camera pointed at her led to a huge panic attack. The only way to photograph her was a long telephoto from the other end of the street!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The rules are in place in some schools, in others they are not. In some schools children are not permitted to carry their phones, in others they are, and do take each others photographs.
The "rule" is arbitrary. and not based on a legal requirement.
Click to expand...

Yet still a rule... ;)
 
cornishboy said:
I think in a place of education where there are a number of vulnerable children courtesy would be the least one could ask for. I would of thought adults would also have expected a school to be a private place.
As I have said previously if there is a court order in place preventing a child from associating with their natural family, the foster family can surely expect privacy etc?
Click to expand...

I am not clear what would make some children more vulnerable to a photograph than any other.

If you mean for instance you should not photograph Downs syndrome children, I would strongly disagree. They usually enjoy the whole process immensely. Most parents are proud of such children and make no attempt to restrict their enjoyment.

Any child that is not enjoying the process should be avoided, but the difficulty is more often the reverse.

Childen under the care of a court can be a special case, but it would be very rare for them to be under a photographic exclusion order.

Such children might be excluded from the attentions of their natural family. but there is no greater chance of seeing a photograph of them, than of accidentily seeing them in the street, and would have no greater significance.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
no one is proposing we should all be able to walk into a school and take photographs of whoever or whatever we like.

When we are invited in to an event, the expetation is that we can photograph what we have come to see.

Simples......
Click to expand...

But it isn't that simple. Dave's point about not disturbing a show is a good one. Now everyone has some sort of portable recording device and if 200 loving parents all shoot their little darlings throughout the play, there would be no play and this has probably done more to create bans then the Daily Fail. A photo op before they start may work, if people agreed.
 
realspeed said:
Response to post 4

Why not leave the iphone in the vehicle one arrived in??? seems the easy solution to me.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

The person is self employed, why should he or she miss work because the people running the bulding assume he's a criminal? it's also probably not covered by insurance.
Personally I'd have done the same and gone home.
 
jon ryan said:
But it isn't that simple. Dave's point about not disturbing a show is a good one. Now everyone has some sort of portable recording device and if 200 loving parents all shoot their little darlings throughout the play, there would be no play and this has probably done more to create bans then the Daily Fail. A photo op before they start may work, if people agreed.
Click to expand...

When my grand children were small, photographs at such school events were organised not banned.
Flash was banned during performances, but video and photographs could be taken. At the end, the various groups were brought back on stage in turn, to be photographed.
The last such event involving them was 3 years ago. However a few years prior to that photography had been banned.
 
I actually dont think the debate has a great deal to do with photography, it is more to do with people being offended by the idea of having to do what they are told and claiming they have 'rights' which are being abused. Whilst the blame can be placed on political correctness, loonie lefties or anything else, the school can have a set of rules and you can either follow it or take your kids up the road to the next school.
 
TheLiege said:
How would you feel about someone taking a photo of you in a swimming pool or state of undress without permission, taking it home, distributing it amongst their friends and sticking it on various websites for people to masturbate over? Then imagine that someone extra messed up finds this photo of you and recognises you from somewhere nearby and starts keeping an eye out for you and eventually spots you and starts keeping an eye on where you go and finds your place of work, the place you live, the people you care about.

If you can honestly tell me that this scenario doesn't bother you then I'm incredibly surprised, and regardless of how unlikely this is it is a possibility. So yes, Mr PD File can harm your child with a photograph.

I have been into plenty of private companies that ask you to leave your phone at reception for whatever reason and no one ever seems to question this.
Click to expand...

People like you should remain in your house, wrapped in cotton wool scared of "what would happen".

What if you got hit by lightning? what if you got run over? what if you got mugged? what if a meteorite hit you? what if.. what if...what if.... :bang:

You cannot go through life scared of the "what if's", otherwise you will never experience anything. It's a pathetic existence and one that only seems to have come about due to scaremongering reporting in some **** national newspaper and all the people that believe everything that appears in them.

And what I find equally more frustrating is people like you who argue the "what-ifs".
 
Harvey_nikon said:
People like you should remain in your house, wrapped in cotton wool scared of "what would happen".

What if you got hit by lightning? what if you got run over? what if you got mugged? what if a meteorite hit you? what if.. what if...what if.... :bang:

You cannot go through life scared of the "what if's", otherwise you will never experience anything. It's a pathetic existence and one that only seems to have come about due to scaremongering reporting in some **** national newspaper and all the people that believe everything that appears in them.

And what I find equally more frustrating is people like you who argue the "what-ifs".
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
Harvey_nikon said:
What if you got hit by lightning? what if you got run over? what if you got mugged? what if a meteorite hit you? what if.. what if...what if.... :bang:
Click to expand...

I don't go out in lightening storms carrying large metal poles, I don't cross the road without looking, I avoid dark alleyways in rough neighbourhoods, in short I take reasonable precautions. Asking people to not take photos of other peoples children seems to me like a reasonable precaution. And the belief that paedophiles can't cause any harm with a photo is akin to believing that you will always make it when running across the road with your eyes closed.
 
TheLiege said:
I don't go out in lightening storms carrying large metal poles, I don't cross the road without looking, I avoid dark alleyways in rough neighbourhoods, in short I take reasonable precautions. Asking people to not take photos of other peoples children seems to me like a reasonable precaution. And the belief that paedophiles can't cause any harm with a photo is akin to believing that you will always make it when running across the road with your eyes closed.
Click to expand...

So, using your logic, would I be classed as a potential paedophile for taking this pic of a child I don't know? :shrug::shrug:


Todo el Mundo ama el Agua, no? by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr
 
Of course it does, but then existing is actually enough to make you a potential paedophile, and the same goes for me. I am also a potential thief and a potential arsonist and an almost infinite number of other things. Everyone has the potential to cause harm however we have to be sensible about it.

For instance if I was the parent of that child and you were taking photos nearby I'd be keeping an eye on you and if I thought you had taken a photo of my child I would be waiting for you to come and ask my permission to keep that photo and if you didn't I would be approaching you and politely asking you to delete your photo.

Let me put it another way. Do you lock your house at night or do you leave the door unlocked because the chances are that the people wandering past aren't thieves?
 
swanseamale47 said:
The person is self employed, why should he or she miss work because the people running the bulding assume he's a criminal? it's also probably not covered by insurance.
Personally I'd have done the same and gone home.
Click to expand...

Yep, there is absolutely no way I would leave something of any value in an unattended vehicle, certainly not a £600 device. Also most insurance policies are void if the item was left unattended in a vehicle and was stolen.
 
cornishboy said:
I actually dont think the debate has a great deal to do with photography, it is more to do with people being offended by the idea of having to do what they are told and claiming they have 'rights' which are being abused. Whilst the blame can be placed on political correctness, loonie lefties or anything else, the school can have a set of rules and you can either follow it or take your kids up the road to the next school.
Click to expand...

That argument would hold more water had the school that instigated the first ban not then tried to sell dvds of the event, whilst using the excuse of "safeguarding the children" to ban anyone else recording the event. If photography was likely to cause such a risk to the school's children then I fail to see how it being undertaken by the school
makes it any safer.

What you have is an individual (the head teacher) coming up with a spurious, commercially-motivated reason for their actions and others picking up on it via the media and deciding that *they* had better do likewise.

We live in a time where the hoi polloi are easily whipped up into a frenzy by the media (the mob attack on the home of the paediatrician in response to The Sun's anti-paedophile campaign springs to mind) without any basis in fact for their beliefs save what they have read in the papers.

The real danger to our children comes not from photographers or strangers, but from
ignorance, and unfortunately *that* is one of the few areas where this country really excels.
 
TheLiege said:
For instance if I was the parent of that child and you were taking photos nearby I'd be keeping an eye on you and if I thought you had taken a photo of my child I would be waiting for you to come and ask my permission to keep that photo and if you didn't I would be approaching you and politely asking you to delete your photo.
Click to expand...

:eek: I would politely tell you to bog off.

I've only been taking photos (in a proper sense) since I've lived here in Spain - thankfully :D
 
Under what law can a parent refuse the taking of their kids photos?

I know Some consent law and most things to do with kids, parents can only consent as yes, they cannot say no.
For instance a parent has the legal right to sign for little Billy's operation, but does not have the legal right to say you can't operate on him ;-)
Its wierd but it's there.
 
Sonriendo said:
:eek: I would politely tell you to bog off.
Click to expand...

I can only assume that you would take the same attitude towards anyone asking you to delete the photo you had just taken of them without their permission and I think this attitude shows a general disregard for other people and is just plain rude. I wouldn't keep a photo of anyone if they had specifically requested that it was deleted regardless of whether they're a child, a complete stranger, a friend or my mother, it just seems like common decency to me.
 
cornishboy said:
I actually dont think the debate has a great deal to do with photography, it is more to do with people being offended by the idea of having to do what they are told and claiming they have 'rights' which are being abused.
Click to expand...


Do me a favour

If I was the OP, I would have walk out too.

I'm here to fix a phone at your invitation, the idea that I can't be trusted to do that without taking pictures of children is particularly distasteful.
This thread is derailed, its become about whether pictures should or should not be allowed to be taken in schools, when the op's point is clearly one of trust.
Do you confiscate parents phones/cameras when they turn up with them for the Christmas play, or you just tell them they can't take pictures and leave it at that.

I work in schools installing/maintenance all the time and the only real rules of engagement are related to tools (not leaving them lying about) obviously, H+S trip hazards and related dangers, nobody has yet decided that we can't be trusted to maintain a safe environment.

Unless you can come up with some concrete reason why I can't keep my phone on me, like...I dunno RF interference with delicate medical equipment or something, I'm certainly not leaving it at home, in the van, at reception or anywhere else on the basis you don't trust me, fix your own telephone.
 
TheLiege said:
Of course it does, but then existing is actually enough to make you a potential paedophile, and the same goes for me. I am also a potential thief and a potential arsonist and an almost infinite number of other things. Everyone has the potential to cause harm however we have to be sensible about it.

For instance if I was the parent of that child and you were taking photos nearby I'd be keeping an eye on you and if I thought you had taken a photo of my child I would be waiting for you to come and ask my permission to keep that photo and if you didn't I would be approaching you and politely asking you to delete your photo.

Let me put it another way. Do you lock your house at night or do you leave the door unlocked because the chances are that the people wandering past aren't thieves?
Click to expand...

Such negativity! Assume the best of others and life will rarely let you down. 80% of statistics are made up, so I'll take a punt and say that chances are heavily weighted in your favour (10,000 to 1?) that the bloke standing next to you at the bus stop in the morning is not an arsonist, thief or pedophile. Give them a chance and you may find out they turn out to be best mate you ever discovered, or the person that's going to pull you back from the edge of the pavement when that lorry passing by comes a little too close.

If you set up a negative pattern match in your kids by always assuming the worst yourself, you really are doing far far more damage to their wellbeing that that stranger standing next to you at the bus stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top