Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Paul Weller and his wife call for child privacy changes...
- Thread starter Sharky
- Start date
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
[devils advocate] but how many of us actually need to take photos of identifiable children in situations where we can't/ don't want to ask the parents permission first ? [/devils advocate]
'Need' is a difficult thing to quantify, but as an example I was at my 6yr old daughters school sports day on Wednesday - I took a number of shots of her in various events, some of which had other children in them who could be recognised (as well as parents, teachers, etc).
With ~200 children taking part in the sports day, it is not practical to ask every parent for permission.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would expect the school to cover that via a consent letter then the school to give consent as they are acting in loco parentis
I do quite a lot of photography with our local school - covering events and such - and they have a consent proforma that they ask all parents to sign , basically saying that it will be assumed that they give consent for their child to be photographed unless they say otherwise
afaik only one parent has ever declined consent , which was because said child was subject to a child protection order - in that case the child was pointed out to me and i agreed to pixelate the face in any shots where they were identifiable.
I do quite a lot of photography with our local school - covering events and such - and they have a consent proforma that they ask all parents to sign , basically saying that it will be assumed that they give consent for their child to be photographed unless they say otherwise
afaik only one parent has ever declined consent , which was because said child was subject to a child protection order - in that case the child was pointed out to me and i agreed to pixelate the face in any shots where they were identifiable.
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How many of us need to take photographs of anything ?
Most of these photographers probably took the photos without permission :
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=photos street urchins&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=g_SaU5jtDoaZPcLNgNgP&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=962
I see one of Bert Hardy's photos there. I wonder what the editors of Picture Post would think about pixelating the faces of the Gorbals Boys.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
True but if you don't "need" to do it then you won't be negatively impacted by having to ask permission [/DA]
Its a tricky situation because there are a lot of parents who would prefer people not to photograph their kids without consent (largely as a result of media scaremongering and hyperbole), so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the govt could pass an ill thought out law as a knee jerk reaction to that ... of course passing it is one thing wheras enforcing it is something else entirely
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That rationale seems like a slippery slope to me. Ask permission for those things you don't need to do or don't do them. On the face of it Mrs W isn't asking for this in any case. She wants it made a criminal offence to PUBLISH an unpixellated photo without permission.
I only have three photographs of children who are not family. All were taken on holiday (usual colourful native or celebration costume type shot). By having them on my Flickr account unpixellated I would be a criminal. Fortunately it's not going to happen.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
its never going to become criminal law... the police have better things to do (unless it constiturtes harrasment which is already illegal) , i could however see it becoming a civil law issue via case law , at least in the case of pap vs celibrities ... which wouldn't adversely effect normal togs as the case law is generally pretty specific
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can't really see it as an issue - even if the law did pass people will still take pictures of kids, they'd just have to ask the parents first (which a lot of people do anyway , if only to avoid all the cobblers that can result from not doing)
Also being devil advocate,would it have to be written consent,which would mean extra work for say wedding photographer.
Divorce or separated parent would you need permission of both ?.
Anyplace where they are lots of children around out on the street/seaside if you take photos their you can't chase every parent around if children get into your photos.
Also would it be retrospect,so that all books would have to be recalled,Facebook or flicker etc where children all children's photos would have to come down ?
Photojournalist say covering an war zone / famine,look how many photos of children are taken without parent permission,because they made be dead or not around.
Sorry but the list could go on
.as I said before to me she just another wannabe wife of a fading star,who are desperate for a bit of limelight again.Ps also what age would it cover 0/18 years ?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 10,888
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be honest most of the images brought up by google seem to show her going about her business. Perhaps as a musicians wife she should stay at home and never be seen in public. As the google auto fill goes woman should...
This was at a school sports day - the parents (myself being one of them) were there, all wandering about following the children as they moved from event to event.
Lots of children, lots of parents, lots of cameras!
It would be a similar situation to taking photos of your children at a public park, on the beach, etc (or in fact, of taking pictures of friends in general in a public place) - there will be cases where other people (adults and children) are in the shot - sometimes only entering the shot at the last moment, so you don't even realise they are in until after you have taken it.
This is clearly a different situation to deliberately taking shots of a stranger, but if a law is introduced requiring permission for children to be photographed, it will be very tricky to get a wording that successfully differentiates between accidental inclusion, incidental inclusion and deliberate inclusion (paparazzi hiring people to stand near to celebs who can then 'occidentally' be in the shot?)
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Which is why it will never happen.
However, the OP (and the Wellers) were talking about a law preventing the publishing of these pictures, not the taking. Equally, that will never happen.
Everyone is treated equally in law. There are no special laws or exemptions for alleged 'celebrities' just because they might be more well known than 'normal' people.
We got rid of a law like that in 1773:
Steve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,581
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
or maybe Phil she thought she might be missing out on some extra income from the sale of "her" photosSure, I'd imagine that someone who's managed to live with a musical legend for 10 years without managing to get in the newspapers before thought it was her big chance
Or maybe just, she thought that pictures of her children in a newspaper for no reason whatsoever is an invasion of their privacy?
Examine those 2 sentences. No we didn't know what they looked like, nor did we care, till the flipping Daily Fail decided to invade their private lives for no reason whatsoever. I can't believe that you even believe that this is some publicity seeking wannabe? It's a bit of a stretch for a living organism to conclude.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so she didn't tweet a semi naked selfie of her baby bump then ? - obviously the media just made it up ?
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
easily covered - the school (who are still in loco parentis of the children during school time) just say "by allowing your child to take part in the sports day you are consenting to other parents photographing them.. on the permission slip ... simples
its private land anyway so the school can do this or indeed ban photography if they want.
as to pictures in the park - surely if you are only interested in pics of your kid its not a problem to pixelate any other strangers kids that just happen to be in shot
To honest I hate everything about celeb culture,go ahead make your films or albums or whatever you do,to make you think your a celeb.
But I don't want to your options on anything or your wife's,half the time you don't know what your talking about,most of the time you make you bring the problems on yourself.
As a matter of fact when you stick your noses into thing you end up making the problem worst.
But I don't want to your options on anything or your wife's,half the time you don't know what your talking about,most of the time you make you bring the problems on yourself.
As a matter of fact when you stick your noses into thing you end up making the problem worst.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
There are two problems with that:
1. Pixelated parts of images look awful - and why should you have to do that? If I had a picture of my son or daughter competing in a sports day race, I would want to see him/her in context with the other children in the race (if they appeared in the shot) not racing against a collection of coloured squares.
2. Old dinosaurs like me who use film can't do that!
Steve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
And it doesn't matter how much the people in question haven't really played to the celebrity culture, you're tarring them with that brush. And even that doesn't justify people invading their kids privacy (remember it's about the kids).To honest I hate everything about celeb culture,go ahead make your films or albums or whatever you do,to make you think your a celeb.
But I don't want to your options on anything or your wife's,half the time you don't know what your talking about,most of the time you make you bring the problems on yourself.
As a matter of fact when you stick your noses into thing you end up making the problem worst.
Frankly the 'they want it all their own way' argument makes my blood boil, it would justify marital rape and all manner of other evil.
When an actor or musician gives an interview or sends out a press release, that's a mutually beneficial occurrence for publishers and the subject. When the press intrude, the subject doesn't cease to become a victim simply because they've spoken to the press before. Like I said, marital rape?
I'm all in favour of genuine investigative journalism, but following 'famous' people round, and making up stuff about them is not journalism. And whilst I don't have any respect for the people who buy those papers/magazines, I certainly don't blame them for the bad behaviour of the press. The press control this and they could control their behaviour very easily. Let's not forget that this story starts with behaviour which is in breach of the press guidelines. Which is where I came in. It's a simple issue, let's have an in dependant body to regulate the press.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
1) you don't have too unless your are publishing it - so for your own home albums that's fine , and 2) if you're not scanning them then you aren't putting them on the internet and thers not a problem .. if you are 'publishing' them on flickr then you could first blur or pixelate.
also I'd presume you know the parents of your sons classmates at least in a nodding fashion so getting consent shouldn't be an issue
- Messages
- 10,888
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah sure Pete that's what I said, the media fabricated the tweet photo of her bump oh wait no I didnt what I actually said is that most images of her seem to be her going about her daily business many of them with long lenses. Why is she even the issue here anyway, she's not complaining about media intrusion in her life but her childrens. Further it seems the high court agree with her that it was an invasion of privacy in that she was awarded £10,000 so there is some law there regarding photographing children already. Your trying to defend the indefensible only your not doing a very good job of it.
Phil you also have to except that a lot of theses so called celeb,sometime do not make perfect parents or very good one,and in some cases by the life style they lead mess their children life's up far more than a few photos of them in the press.
Do you really believe this young attractive woman would of gone after Paul Weller,if he had been some old mod 37 years younger than her with 3 marriages & 5 other children,if he been living on some council estate
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
SimonPhil you also have to except that a lot of theses so called celeb,sometime do not make perfect parents or very good one,and in some cases by the life style they lead mess their children life's up far more than a few photos of them in the press.
You should by now have realised that I don't even 'accept' that Paul Weller is a 'celebrity'. Your argument is totally without foundation if you swap the word 'celeb' for 'person'. It is simply unacceptable to follow people around and photograph them when they have asked you to stop*. It's quite simple, and that's all there is to it.
Dressing up the story and suggesting it's OK because the father of the kids has sometimes sought publicity is simply smoke and mirrors. I'd suggest that despite your 'dislike' of celeb culture, you are sucked into it, you hold 'celebs' up to a different set of values to the rest of us. That IMO is totally ridiculous. Whereas my dislike of celeb culture is for exactly this reason. We all have the same basic human rights, and that includes the right to a private family life, to accept that a 'celeb' doesn't deserve that right is ludicrous.
*it ought to go without saying that this rule doesn't apply to actual news reporting.
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you really believe this young attractive woman would of gone after Paul Weller,if he had been some old mod 37 years younger than her with 3 marriages & 5 other children,if he been living on some council estate
Do you actually believe that is any of our business? Again Simon, you fall for the 'celeb culture' whilst claiming to despise it.
Sorry Phil i am not falling into their world,and as you say its none of my business,but when they come into my world with theses stupid idea,that if you read my earlier long post how a law like this could affect true journalism which you said you believe in that's what made me
.
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I can understand your anger, I just don't understand how you seem to think it's acceptable for the press to hound people and excuse them for doing so because apparently the people happen to be 'celebs'. Nor do I understand why you choose to attack them because you feel they have entered 'your world'Sorry Phil i am not falling into their world,and as you say its none of my business,but when they come into my world with theses stupid idea,that if you read my earlier long post how a law like this could affect true journalism which you said you believe in that's what made me
I entirely agree about the original story, but we all know nothing will come of the 'new law'. However if we are very lucky, someone might take it seriously and we'll see a change to the way the press is policed. And that's a good thing for every citizen of this country.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,349
- Name
- Philip
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Who gives a sh@% about Paul Weller, his wife or his kids. People like him were well versed in using the press to their advantage whilst climbing the fame ladder. when the press turn and bite them on the ar@%, they don't like it.
- Messages
- 155
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree. If you listen to Mrs Weller she also goes on about men hiding in bushes and threatening to have a fight with her husband as well as following them after they have been asked to stop.
However what she is proposing does not address this issue. She is suggesting specific legislation in the UK which would criminalise PUBLISHING certain photographs. There is an international market. These actions would still continue for foreign publication.
It seems that she is looking for further legislation in an area where she has already been successful at law. Perhaps she should be looking at the law on harassment to see if this needs strengthening in these circumstances.
- Messages
- 26,487
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You absolutely have the right to attack her for a silly idea, I will back you all the way. It's a stupid idea.Phil i don't were going to agree fully on this,i think your a big Paul Weller fan
I do feel i have the right to attack her for a silly idea
What I will argue with though, is the idea that she somehow 'deserves' to be followed because she's a celeb, or that 'they bring it on themselves' which are pointlessly ridiculous arguments. We are talking about people harassing her children and publishing the resulting photographs, that's indefensible, and if we're going to get better behaviour from the press it'll only come from all the sensible people sticking to sensible points.
And it's not because I'm a fan, I stuck with the 'whining celebrities' throughout the Leveson enquiry, I have posted on other forums about the shocking behaviour of the Daily Mail on invasion of privacy matters. Press like that are scum and we need to speak with a sensible and intelligent voice to ensure that justice is done.
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Phil i don't were going to agree fully on this,i think your a big Paul Weller fan
I do feel i have the right to attack her for a silly idea
I think you have the right to disagree with her and to state that opinion, but not to so vehemently attack her (as you put it).
But the photos she made a fuss about were taken in the US,so why isn't she having a go at the US law as well.
Your words ( She is suggesting specific legislation in the UK which would criminalise PUBLISHING certain photographs ) which is taking shots of any kid,so what about the shot taken by Bert Hardy, HCB, & Don McCullin ban any future photographer from taking photo of children.
What about photos taken abroad,ban all my photo i took in Cambodia of young kids as young as 5 being forced into prostitution,which i was trying to put a stop to,because they had no rich parents protecting them ?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe ?,but its a stupid idea she didn't think thought
And again, in English?
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
It must be absolutely awful to be hounded by rude and intrusive paparazzi. If those photographers are told to stop and go away, and if they refuse to do so, then to my mind that is harassment. It's that behaviour which should be curbed, not the ridiculous and brainless notion that it should become an offence to publish photographs containing children without consent. If that were to happen, we would have no tourism industry and probably no news industry either. Facebook would crumble into dust, and nobody could innocently share photos of their outings and events unless consent had been obtained from the parents of every minor in the frame, Or else spend hours at a time pixelating endless juvenile faces and thereby ruining each and every photograph. That's pretty laughable and cannot realistically be enforced. It sounds to me that Mrs W doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.
As for "celebrities" in general - unfortunately if a person is well known they will need to accept a degree of intrusion as a result, unpleasant as that can be at times. They have every right to object to anything which descends into harassment, but there is no doubt that some people feel that they should be afforded a level of clout above the normal citizen.
As for "celebrities" in general - unfortunately if a person is well known they will need to accept a degree of intrusion as a result, unpleasant as that can be at times. They have every right to object to anything which descends into harassment, but there is no doubt that some people feel that they should be afforded a level of clout above the normal citizen.
- Messages
- 10,888
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wtf Simon, honestly your talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]Do you really believe this young attractive woman would of gone after Paul Weller,if he had been some old mod 37 years younger than her with 3 marriages & 5 other children,if he been living on some council estate