Possible under 18's in my image

Messages
4
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Today I was taking photos of waves. As I was doing so, two lads came into frame, one with a fishing rod, the other with a bike. Both were far enough away that could not see their faces and they made good sillouettes against the background so I took a few frames as the chap with the fishing rod started to fish. Meanwhile, whilst I was shooting, the other lad took off his top and teased the waves running in and out. Without thinking I continued to take frames as waves caught him. A passer-by gently said as he passed me "you want to be careful taking pictures of under-18's". Thinking it through on returning home, I took his point that they were probably under 18 (I guess 15 or 16) and that the lad with top off might possibly be construed as an issue so I deleted all of the shots taken of them in the camera immediately without even looking at them, let alone copying them, Is this reasonable behaviour on my part?
 
OP
B
Messages
4
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Thanks. In 'to do so', do you mean to take the photos in the first place or to delete them after 'just in case'?
 
OP
B
Messages
4
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
It's an interesting one though, intention or not, looking on the Government and other photo websites, there is nothing wrong with photographing children (despite what many people think) but you must not take an 'indecent' photo. The term 'indecent images of children' means a sexual image of a child (anyone under the age of 18). It includes: Nude or partially clothed children.
 
Messages
6,219
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
It's an interesting one though, intention or not, looking on the Government and other photo websites, there is nothing wrong with photographing children (despite what many people think) but you must not take an 'indecent' photo. The term 'indecent images of children' means a sexual image of a child (anyone under the age of 18). It includes: Nude or partially clothed children.
You didn't create a sexual image of a child though
 
Last edited:

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,229
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
I deleted all of the shots taken of them in the camera immediately without even looking at them, let alone copying them, Is this reasonable behaviour on my part?
I would say not reasonable no.. I would say more paranoid than anything... however I get what @DemiLion is saying.. if you think it was reasonable to do then it was.... But if your asking others.. I think no.. The passer-by was one of those experts that doesnt know anything and you acted upon it...
 
Messages
650
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I think I have previously mentioned at a Club studio shoot we chose a gritty outdoor location but the arranged model failed to arrive. Two of our group went into a nearby MacDonald's and persuaded 3 teenagers to pose for us. One had bright red hair so we took shots of them singly and in groups using the gritty backdrop and were well pleased with the results. As we reach the time we agreed, our leader suddenly though to ask their ages; they were all 15. So he warned us that unless we could get parental permission in writing, we should delete the images. One of the parents arrived to pick them up so our leader and one of the ladies spoke to this parent and they were OK about. During the following few days our female photographer contacted all of the parents and obtained permission by email. Of course went sent copies of the images to the teenagers who found them really cool. All was well and we were able to use the shots in competitions. While it is strictly what you do with the images that matters, the NSPCC recommend not taking photographs without parental permission. Of course in our case the teenagers were clearly identifiable not sure about your case. In any case, if you have decided not to use the images for whatever reason, there is no point in keeping them. You should do what you think is right.

Dave
 

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,229
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
I think I have previously mentioned at a Club studio shoot we chose a gritty outdoor location but the arranged model failed to arrive. Two of our group went into a nearby MacDonald's and persuaded 3 teenagers to pose for us. One had bright red hair so we took shots of them singly and in groups using the gritty backdrop and were well pleased with the results. As we reach the time we agreed, our leader suddenly though to ask their ages; they were all 15. So he warned us that unless we could get parental permission in writing, we should delete the images. One of the parents arrived to pick them up so our leader and one of the ladies spoke to this parent and they were OK about. During the following few days our female photographer contacted all of the parents and obtained permission by email. Of course went sent copies of the images to the teenagers who found them really cool. All was well and we were able to use the shots in competitions. While it is strictly what you do with the images that matters, the NSPCC recommend not taking photographs without parental permission. Of course in our case the teenagers were clearly identifiable not sure about your case. In any case, if you have decided not to use the images for whatever reason, there is no point in keeping them. You should do what you think is right.

Dave
Complete and utter codswollop

You do NOT need parents permision
 
Last edited:

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,229
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
From the NSPCC website https://thecpsu.org.uk/help-advice/...otographer about how,at a young person's home

Photography at open event sites
In general, members of the public are entitled to take photos in public areas, whether or not this includes taking images of children involved in sports events or activities.

Regardless of any policies or procedures governing photography by those involved in or watching sports events, organisers have no right to impose these rules on other members of the public accessing or using the same public spaces.
 

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,229
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
Can we please stop saying you cant take pictures of children without permission as thats just wrong... theres guidence.. theres best practice theres all manner of this that and the other.. I ahve my own on my website www.kipax.com/policy
 
Messages
650
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
What I said was that our leader suggested that we should delete the images if we failed to obtain parental permission. We questioned this but he said that if we ask for permission and it is refused then we would not be able to use the images as we wished. While not illegal to have taken them or to keep them, he was sensibly pointing out that, if you did not delete them now, then we may unintentionally use one of the images in future which we should not and logically, if we are not going to use any of the images, why keep them. We were satisfied with his advice and logic and given that he was able over the following few days to gain written permission, we were well pleased. As a Camera Club we also have to maintain a level of trust by the public.

Dave
 
Messages
650
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Yep. I'm afraid that is still a load of hokum.
Your answer is very rude.

It is an opinion which we all shared so it must be valid for us and we were following guidance from the NSPCC. If you think the NPCCC are wrong tell them yourself. Does anyone else on this forum think it is fine to persuade 3 under 16's to be photographed and the images used (including publishing on the web) without obtaining parental permission?

Dave
 
Messages
11,474
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
The real trouble is the national press giving headline time to a few perverts ,and then making it the new normal .. for the general public to think that everyone with a camera is a perv ,while millions of the idjits use phones to do the same . I have even had someone pull up in there car while sat on my front wall testing out a new lens/camera and aggressively ask me what I was taking pictures of .. as there’s a school about half a mile away .. that I was shooting in the opposite direction was irrelevant to this cretin
 
Messages
3,819
Edit My Images
No
Your answer is very rude.
Mark's response, though blunt, hardly qualifies as rude.

The term "hokum" is used to describe " trite, sentimental, or unrealistic " situations or statements. In the relation to the current discussion, the law is clear: it's illegal to take, possess or publish sexual pictures of children. It is not illegal to take, possess or publish non-sexual pictures of children. The statement that Mark commented on appears to imply that you believe otherwise and that is fairly described as "unrealistic".

I will add that I am not a fan of Mark. :naughty:
 
Messages
6,600
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
Does anyone else on this forum think it is fine to persuade 3 under 16's to be photographed and the images used (including publishing on the web) without obtaining parental permission?
You probably need to separate the two actions. Taking the picture and usage of the picture.

If you're on public land you can take pictures of whatever or whoever you want with whatever they're wearing (or not!) as long as no one is breaking the law (indecent exposure etc etc)

But when it comes to usage - especially commercial usage - you need to be more careful. Some buildings have copyright for example, never mind people!
Recognisable people absolutely need to give their permission for you to use their likeness in (for example) advertising. That's why model releases were invented. If the model is under 18, I would imagine parental consent is also required (though NOT a lawyer!)

Commercial usage could be anything that promotes your business, or your product(s). It's not always about payment. Get A Lawyer or legal advice if it's not clear. "What about a club competition?" - If the images are prints, reviewed on one night, then everyone takes them home, I would guess that's ok. What about [random example] a national competition where the images are posted online and it's to promote a gay male organisation? That could probably be construed as advertising even though it's a comp

As for "thinking it's fine", that's a moral question that is likely to have as many opinions as there are folks on this forum. Personally, I think it's a bit weird wanting to persuade strange children to be models for your camera club and a little careless to not think to ask their ages before you started, but that's me. That's a whole different scenario to the OPs question which was about something happening in front of him in a public place, where most people wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the guy (for example) took all his clothes off (breaking the decency laws) I would definitely have put the camera away - whether he was 16, 18 or 88!
 
Last edited:
Messages
378
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
I think what is really disturbing is the fact that you didn't ask these girls their ages until after you had taken their photographs.
I think disturbing is a bit strong, some 15 year olds don't look young at all, maybe it was a courtesy question after the photos were done.

Also, doesn't mention anywhere that they were girls.
 
Messages
378
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Indeed, the clue is in the OP. ;)
The post I was referring to was referring to another two posts from Dave Canon about 15 year olds and another situation, not the OP. He only mentioned teenagers no genders.
 
Messages
11,811
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Mark's response, though blunt, hardly qualifies as rude.

The term "hokum" is used to describe " trite, sentimental, or unrealistic " situations or statements. In the relation to the current discussion, the law is clear: it's illegal to take, possess or publish sexual pictures of children. It is not illegal to take, possess or publish non-sexual pictures of children. The statement that Mark commented on appears to imply that you believe otherwise and that is fairly described as "unrealistic".
I rather meant in its sense of 'nonsense' as opposed to the film descriptor - sort of like bunkum.

It certainly wasn't meant as rude.
 
Messages
11,811
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Some buildings have copyright for example, never mind people!
Recognisable people absolutely need to give their permission for you to use their likeness in (for example) advertising. That's why model releases were invented. If the model is under 18, I would imagine parental consent is also required (though NOT a lawyer!)
Mostly wrong with regard to the UK.

There is no copyright in a building unless it is being reproduced as a building, certainly not in terms of a photographic reproduction (Sect 62 CDPA 1988).

There is no personal IP in terms of ones likeness. There are however both the issues of 'passing off' and defamation. Avoid those and no consent is required.

There is no difference between a child or an adult when it comes to consent for use apart from legal responsibility.
 
Messages
11,811
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Your answer is very rude.

It is an opinion which we all shared so it must be valid for us and we were following guidance from the NSPCC. If you think the NPCCC are wrong tell them yourself. Does anyone else on this forum think it is fine to persuade 3 under 16's to be photographed and the images used (including publishing on the web) without obtaining parental permission?

Dave

So codswollop is fine but hokum isn't? How do you differentiate between those two assessments of your comments?

As for the rest, well...

120701_SundayTimes_sm.jpg
 
Messages
650
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I rather meant in its sense of 'nonsense' as opposed to the film descriptor - sort of like bunkum.

It certainly wasn't meant as rude.
Fine, I did take it that you meant nonsense. What you failed to see was that I had already made it clear that I was not stating a legal position but merely stating what actually happened so calling that Nonsense amounts to suggesting that I was lying which is why I saw it as rude. Hopefully you did not mean that either.

Just to clear up points others mentioned. All three looked about 18 and there were two girls and one boy. The circumstances were not as odd as it might seem. The three had been to a sleepover and arrived in the adjacent MacDonald's about 1000 Sunday Morning to await collection by one of the parents at 1145. By 1030 we had lighting set up and no model. One of our number was a retired lady teacher and was probably the one who realised that we may have been wrong about age. Having captured some good images, we did not want to find that we would have been restricted in using them and yes several have been in national and international Salons, published in catalogues and displayed on websites but not used commercially. I do not normally sell images but occasionally the Club does run a commercial exhibition but I never show images in these which involve recognisable individual people. I made one exception to this with a photograph of a local Banksy's work which included my 20+ year old son (but he gave permission) which was sold.

Dave
 
Messages
11,811
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Fine, I did take it that you meant nonsense. What you failed to see was that I had already made it clear that I was not stating a legal position but merely stating what actually happened so calling that Nonsense amounts to suggesting that I was lying which is why I saw it as rude. Hopefully you did not mean that either.
I don't really need your approval, thanks.

And I was referring to the opinion and advice given by your dear leader - which was (and still is) hogwash.

Seeing as you appear to be posting it as an exemplar of how to approach this, then I'm assuming that it is your advice as well.
 
Messages
650
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Whether or not you like it what we did was agreed by us all and is consistent with advice by the NSPCC and in the same circumstances we would take the same decision. Nevertheless on this forum you frequently rubbish peoples opinions.

Dave
 
Messages
11,811
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Whether or not you like it what we did was agreed by us all and is consistent with advice by the NSPCC and in the same circumstances we would take the same decision. Nevertheless on this forum you frequently rubbish peoples opinions.

Dave

I very rarely counter people's opinions because it is utterly pointless.

However, as Andrew points out, facts are a totally different matter.

That includes advice based on hearsay, rumour, folk-law and frequently old wives tales.
 
Messages
11,811
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No

Lovely article but it is mostly scaremongering and over protection (apart from a few blatantly obvious duty of care positions such as court protection orders).
As per normal every statement is 'could', 'may', 'might', 'possibly'.

The only legal reference on there, apart from data protection (which is out of date anyway) is this statement previously quoted in this thread by Tony:

" There is no law against taking photos [at public events], including of other people’s children ".
(my added brackets)

In fact the only laws preventing the actual taking of an image are those detailed in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the
Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Add to that any High Court injunction - which usually restricts publication and is the duty of the guardian to enforce.

Everything else applies to adults just as much as legal minors (U18);
ie decency of manners, data protection, morals and respecting someone else's feelings.
Only one part of that is law: data protection, and even that is less clear than the Thames at low tide.
 
Messages
650
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
You are still not listening. I have never suggested our decision was based on legal advice or suggested others do the same. If you look at my first post, I suggested that the OP do what he thinks is right. I have pointed out that the group of us took a decision based on what we thought was right at the time and all of us have children, one was a retired teacher and our leader had worked with special needs children. Also as I have said we have to uphold an image of our Camera Club. Our Club is considered to be respectable and this does allow us to access places and take photographs which would not necessarily be offered to individuals. This is critical to us as we run a county wide photography competition for school children and have done so for 12 years. We also work with the local University and students. Why can you not accept that we took a judgement taking account of many factors many of which you could not know.

Dave
 

Pag

Messages
129
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
It's a sad indictment of the word today that this thread even exists.
 
Messages
3,819
Edit My Images
No
I think that it has more to do with the fact that a lot of photographers are ignorant of the laws pertaining to photography.
The heart of the problem is that there's so much law to be ignorant of.
 
Messages
23,749
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
The heart of the problem is that there's so much law to be ignorant of.
I’d suggest the opposite is true; that there’s so few laws to be concerned with that people invent things to fill the gaps.
 
Messages
10
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I think you shouldn't delete them because it wasn't sexual nature the pictures and from moment that you couldn't see who they are... what's the problem.
 

wack61

I've got an itchy hatch
Messages
7,286
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Go onto ticktok,facebook,instgram,twitter and you'll see hundreds of pictures and videos of under 18s ,but take a picture with a DSLR and you feel like you've done something wrong it's like the smartphone doesn't count as a camera even thogh some of them have very long zooms these days
 
Top