Sad Times

Stuart M said:
Photographers rights are largely irrelevant when you're faced with irrational people with a bazzy on. They don't give a stuff about your rights and you could argue with them until you're blue in the face but you'd just be wasting your breath. These people are irrational. They're only interested in seeing things their way. A sheet of A4 with 'the rules' written on it will not stop them.
Click to expand...

Agreed.... but it's good to know you hold a degree of the moral highground.

Moreover, if it's laminated, you could slash a few wrists! :)
 
chuckles said:
This is a useful document to print and carry all the time in your camera bag.... double-sided A4 and is pretty much up to date as far as I can tell.

Photographer's RIghts - UK
Click to expand...

Not sure how much may have changed in the intervening 8 years since that was first published.
 
I'm sorry to burst everyone's outrage bubble and the 'photographer's rights' crew, but this:

OldCarlos said:
Maggie, report the person & the club.

They have no right to stop you & the FA's `respect` initiative also agrees..
Click to expand...

Is completely wrong.

In fact the manager's wife is following the FA's safeguarding procedure to the letter.

You know, that sports body that is in just a spot of hot water at the moment because of historic child sexual abuse?
 
DemiLion said:
I'm sorry to burst everyone's outrage bubble and the 'photographer's rights' crew, but this:



Is completely wrong.

In fact the manager's wife is following the FA's safeguarding procedure to the letter.

You know, that sports body that is in just a spot of hot water at the moment because of historic child sexual abuse?
Click to expand...

Abuse perpetrated by adults who worked for the football clubs, not by photographers on the sidelines. If the FA needs to safeguard kids from anybody, it's from their own people.
 
Last edited:
TLR-330 said:
You read it I take it ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, of course. I think it's more generic and not specific enough for the OP's original problem.

It's a good starting point of reference in most 'controversial' scenarios.
 
Craig1912 said:
I was going to post a link to the above but also found this

http://www.thefa.com/my-football/football-volunteers/whatsyourpitch/backpages/photographs

which says you need parental permission to take pictures of U16s
Click to expand...

I think that refers to the taking & storing of images by the club(s) themselves, rather than individuals in public spaces. It's a similar thing with schools etc with permission forms.

If you click on the link/download (child protection) at the bottom) it actually takes you to the link I posted.
 
Last edited:
This is typical of the photographers rights threads that often pop up on here. I can photo who or what I like when I like type of thread. No disrespect to Maggie, I can see she had a genuine query but some of the responses are typical. Whilst photographers may very well have the right to photograph who they like in public ,child or otherwise, if the parent doesn't want you to, then surely that needs to be respected. Maybe the managers wife was not a power junkie libtard but was simply expressing the wishes of some parents whose children were playing football.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
This is typical of the photographers rights threads that often pop up on here. I can photo who or what I like when I like type of thread. No disrespect to Maggie, I can see she had a genuine query but some of the responses are typical. Whilst photographers may very well have the right to photograph who they like in public ,child or otherwise, if the parent doesn't want you to, then surely that needs to be respected. Maybe the managers wife was not a power junkie libtard but was simply expressing the wishes of some parents whose children were playing football.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment & good manners & common sense should always apply, but Maggie was stopped from taking pics of her own G/son + the person who stopped her was actually wrong.
 
Craig1912 said:
I was going to post a link to the above but also found this

http://www.thefa.com/my-football/football-volunteers/whatsyourpitch/backpages/photographs

which says you need parental permission to take pictures of U16s
Click to expand...


What you are referring to here is the FA guidelines for club officials where the club itself might wish to use images on its website or distribution for advertising / media purposes. Then they need parental consent which they obtain by getting parents/carers of young players to sign a 'parental consent' form. This is a separate issue from taking photos of the action from the sidelines.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
This is typical of the photographers rights threads that often pop up on here. I can photo who or what I like when I like type of thread. No disrespect to Maggie, I can see she had a genuine query but some of the responses are typical. Whilst photographers may very well have the right to photograph who they like in public ,child or otherwise, if the parent doesn't want you to, then surely that needs to be respected. Maybe the managers wife was not a power junkie libtard but was simply expressing the wishes of some parents whose children were playing football.
Click to expand...

:agree: She may have also been following the guideline laid down by that particular club. Maybe she didn't word her explanation very well but there are other reasons than just assuming someone is a paedophile to not want children's photos taken. There are plenty of children in foster care taken from abusive families who would not want photos being on social media, also children of people who have left abusive relationships and may have even moved area who would not want the risk of their partners seeing the child on social media. I'm sure there are other valid reasons as well.

chuckles said:
(I was photographing our local Cricket Club which uses Council grounds. I did not see that I should have to go through CRB checks for such a simple activity. I was told that as long as I could reasonably ascertain no minor was in a 'protected/custodial environment' everything would be fine. Quite how they accepted that I was not a felon in the pay of Kidnappers is another issue entirely)
Click to expand...

(My bold) - interested in how you went about acheiving this?
 
SteveSc said:
:agree: She may have also been following the guideline laid down by that particular club. Maybe she didn't word her explanation very well but there are other reasons than just assuming someone is a paedophile to not want children's photos taken. There are plenty of children in foster care taken from abusive families who would not want photos being on social media, also children of people who have left abusive relationships and may have even moved area who would not want the risk of their partners seeing the child on social media. I'm sure there are other valid reasons as well.
Click to expand...

Individual football clubs (even kids teams) do not each have their own quirky set of rules. If they compete under the FA umbrella, then they follow the FA rules and guidelines - end of. If the manager's wife in question was a club official then she would be expected to comply accordingly. If she was not a club official then it's nothing to do with her anyway.

FA guidelines in respect of vulnerable chldren are also very clear. As long as the guidelines are followed, there is minimal risk and absolutely no need for unnecassary paranoia.

My son's photo has been in the local paper several times as a result of playing for his team but I don't start getting all paranoid about it or panic that the local paedos are going to get him. How could they from a photograph? He's never identified by name or address. It doesn't tell 'them' which school he goes to and it doesn't even say where the match was being played. How could 'they' possibly find him from that? If it was put on Facebook, it would be no different.

And the most important thing to remember is that the greatest threat comes from within anyway. All of the recent sexual abuse claims within football recently have been levelled against people INSIDE the clubs - coaches, trainers etc.
 
Last edited:
SteveSc said:
She may have also been following the guideline laid down by that particular club. Maybe she didn't word her explanation very well but there are other reasons than just assuming someone is a paedophile to not want children's photos taken. There are plenty of children in foster care taken from abusive families who would not want photos being on social media, also children of people who have left abusive relationships and may have even moved area who would not want the risk of their partners seeing the child on social media. I'm sure there are other valid reasons as well.
Click to expand...

Already covered in previous posts. ;)
 
Stuart M said:
Individual football clubs (even kids teams) do not each have their own quirky set of rules. If they compete under the FA umbrella, then they follow the FA rules and guidelines - end of
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Stuart M said:
FA guidelines in respect of vulnerable chldren are also very clear. As long as the guidelines are followed, there is minimal risk and absolutely no need for unnecassary paranoia.
Click to expand...

From the link to the Surrey FA (above), they say the following about vulnerable children:
(point 3) ensure that any child in your club who is under care proceedings, is protected by ensuring that their image is not placed in the public domain. This can be done by using a Consent Form, so that parents/carers can identify whether this applies to children in their care.

Stuart M said:
My son's photo has been in the local paper several times as a result of playing for his team but I don't start getting all paranoid about it or panic that the local paedos are going to get him
Click to expand...

My son also plays for a local team, I also would have no issue with his photo being used and I don't get in a panic about it. You mention paedos again, which seems to be the first thought on safeguarding but as pointed out above there are other probably more likely reasons.

Stuart M said:
He's never identified by name or address. It doesn't tell 'them' which school he goes to and it doesn't even say where the match was being played. How could 'they' possibly find him from that? If it was put on Facebook, it would be no different.
Click to expand...

He probably has a football shirt on with the team name on it....really wouldn't be that difficult to find out where they play. The surrey fa guide has this as a potential risk of allowing photographs: The identification and locating of children in inappropriate circumstances which include: (i) where a child has been removed from his/her family for their own safety; (ii) where restrictions on contact with one parent following a parental separation exist e.g. in domestic violence cases; (iii) in situations where a child may be a witness in criminal proceedings; or (iv) other safeguarding children concerns

You and I might have no concern about our child's photograph being taken. It does not mean that everyone there feels the same, some may have very valid reasons for feeling that way.

Maybe they cannot legally stop someone taking photos, I am just trying to point out that there may be reasons for requesting someone not to.
 
I'd be interested to know, SteveSc, what would be your response to my final point about the greater danger coming from within rather than from without. How should concerned parents protect their children from that? Perhaps not allow their kids to join such clubs or organisations in the first place.
 
SteveSc said:
There are still some valid concerns mentioned in the best practice documents, even if they can't legally stop someone taking photos on a public field.
Click to expand...

Agreed absolutely, but still not what the OP started the thread about. (& being an ex NHS employee, I'm sure she's fully aware of risks & best practices)
 
Stuart M said:
I'd be interested to know, SteveSc, what would be your response to my final point about the greater danger coming from within rather than from without. How should concerned parents protect their children from that? Perhaps not allow their kids to join such clubs or organisations in the first place.
Click to expand...

Probably a discussion for somewhere else but my short answer would be there are certain levels of risk everywhere (clubs, school, family, friends, etc) for me it's a mix of things; trying to ensure clubs you join have good child protection policies etc; partly about educating your child and partly accepting that there is probably no 100% way of guaranteeing it not happening.

What would your answer be about allowing photos of a child who needs safeguarding (for some of the other reasons mentioned above rather than sexual abuse issues) being taken at a club football match?
 
OldCarlos said:
Agreed absolutely, but still not what the OP started the thread about. (& being an ex NHS employee, I'm sure she's fully aware of risks & best practices)
Click to expand...

No, she was upset about being asked to stop taking photos at her grandsons football match. She legally shouldn't have been stopped (assuming it was a public place and not a club owned pitch) and the reasons she was given were not particularly valid ones for asking her to stop.

I would be interested to know if they had said that there were other safeguarding issues (not that they would be allowed to) whether she would have stopped without any complaint. Or if you or anyone else would for that matter.

To be fair to the OP, I think she has handled it ok, she stopped when asked to avoid problems for her grandson with the coach/manager and I think that is an admirable thing to do. She has let of steam here which is also a completly fine thing to do. All I am wanting to point out is that it is not all about photographers being peados but that there are deeper issues to think about when as photographers we are fighting for our right to take photos where ever we want.
 
Steve, no, she was upset about not being allowed to take pictures of her G/son.
She was wrongly stopped.

I also agree with the way she handled it at the time.
OldCarlos said:
With hindsight you would have stood up to her, BUT, at the time you weren't sure, so you did the right thing. (y)
Click to expand...

I also said similar previously;
OldCarlos said:
as long as kids aren't actually named on social media etc (just in case they are in care, or have been subject to care proceedings, under protection orders etc) there is no reason not to take pictures.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sounds like we pretty much agree, and I had missed your previous comment about kids being in care etc so I apologise for saying that it hadn't been raised. However, I would say that I would think there would be more to it than not just naming them on social media, surely just having there image on social media could be an issue for some of them?

I would be interested in your views on my question in post #58 about how would you know if any of the children in the team were in care, subject to care proceedings, etc.
 
Stuart M said:
What you are referring to here is the FA guidelines for club officials where the club itself might wish to use images on its website or distribution for advertising / media purposes. Then they need parental consent which they obtain by getting parents/carers of young players to sign a 'parental consent' form. This is a separate issue from taking photos of the action from the sidelines.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. Read the header at the top of the page which says "Support for Administrators, Parents and Volunteers".

Those are the FA's instructions for photography. The Respect guidelines then follow after.
 
SteveSc said:
Quoting Chuckles (I was photographing our local Cricket Club which uses Council grounds. I did not see that I should have to go through CRB checks for such a simple activity. I was told that as long as I could reasonably ascertain no minor was in a 'protected/custodial environment' everything would be fine. Quite how they accepted that I was not a felon in the pay of Kidnappers is another issue entirely)

(My bold) - interested in how you went about acheiving this?
Click to expand...

It was quite easy in this situation - There were/are a couple of coaches who hold CRB accreditation. I asked if there were any individuals who were in need of protection, etc.- it wasn't necessary for names; just a yes/no answer leading to a go/no go activity.

Sadly, there was a convicted paedophile who was a member of the Club before his conviction - that focused the attention of ALL concerned I can tell you, probably over-much!
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
No, it isn't. Read the header at the top of the page which says "Support for Administrators, Parents and Volunteers".

Those are the FA's instructions for photography. The Respect guidelines then follow after.
Click to expand...


I'm honestly not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse or you genuinely don't understand the layout of that particular part of the FA's website. What do you think that 'Administrator' means in that context? It's a club official not some random parent stood on the touchline watching the match. That same header shows up on every single one of the pages relating to the sub headings immediately below it. It's guidance for the clubs themselves and their officials, not any spectators. If you cannot grasp that then I can only surmise that you have little in the way of cognitive reasoning.

I would also point out that in item 4 in the photography section they speak of "the club's photos" and "the club official's laptop". Which random spectator do you think they're talking about there, eh!
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
The RFU actively encourage photographs, I used to take the images weekly I just had to be cleared with the RFU. Is it the same with the FA and would the clubs safeguarding officer be able to put you through clearance?
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...361/1405667487link-to-photographic-policy.pdf

The permission to be photographed is included in the annual permissions form of the kids
Click to expand...

Are you informed if a particular child/parent/guardian has not given permission?
The guidlines you link to contain this clause: Anyone taking photographs or recording at any rugby event must have a valid reason for doing so and seek the permission of the organisers/persons in charge. So it would seem that they are trying to keep some sort of control over who takes photos.
 
When want to take photos of my Grandson at football I go to both his teams and the opposition teams website a week or two before the match and advise both sides, I also offer that anyone from either side would like to see the pictures on the day, or they would like a copy I will be only to happy to oblige. So far I have had no objections.
 
SteveSc said:
Are you informed if a particular child/parent/guardian has not given permission?
The guidlines you link to contain this clause: Anyone taking photographs or recording at any rugby event must have a valid reason for doing so and seek the permission of the organisers/persons in charge. So it would seem that they are trying to keep some sort of control over who takes photos.
Click to expand...

Yes, usually on the day by the coach. Only had it once with rugby.

On the other hand, as with OP I went with a friends mum to her sons football game in Telford and was immediately called out and accosted by other mums (very rudely, similar accusations), despite standing with them (and having my RFU crb clearance in my camera bag). No quick chat, straight in with the accusations. My friend was getting embarrassed so I put the camera away, then wrote an article for the local paper. The comments after the article was like mumsnet on steroids.
 
SteveSc said:
Sounds like we pretty much agree, and I had missed your previous comment about kids being in care etc so I apologise for saying that it hadn't been raised. However, I would say that I would think there would be more to it than not just naming them on social media, surely just having there image on social media could be an issue for some of them?

I would be interested in your views on my question in post #58 about how would you know if any of the children in the team were in care, subject to care proceedings, etc.
Click to expand...

Steve, I think we do actually agree. (y)


I work with such children & young adults & due to the nature of my work have to have a current Enhanced DBS (used to be CRB)

When they enrol in any sport/activity club it is good practice to inform & make clear to leaders/coaches (hence the FA template) about child X or Y so they are made aware of any protection issues regarding individuals.
For most kids in local authority care, they aren't generally allowed to have their images published, eg in newspapers/local press etc at all, nor even on their chosen sports club website & certainly not `named`.

All a coach/leader needs to do is politely ask someone not to photograph child X or Y, but there simply isn't a ban on members of the public/relatives taking pictures.


Common sense needs to be applied by everyone, but simply telling someone they aren't allowed to take pics at a football game is false & whoever said it to the OP actually needs correcting, if only to stop potential further confrontations & maybe it will help against the insidious derogatory remarks that innocent folk have to endure sometimes, just because they carry a camera.
I actually think all parents should be furnished with this (from the FA) when they sign up their children to play;

20f9mf.jpg
 
Last edited:
Goodness quite a debate;)

I was a registered nurse and my husband was a child protection officer so I am aware of safeguarding issues etc.

I guess the irritating thing for me was that the lady in question apparently was the managers wife and as far as I know has no official standing in the club. No explanation was given other than "you can't take photos" You would need permission from the parents of all the children. I've no idea how I would achieve this to be fair as it was only a one off, I'm not a regular spectator but of course my son and his wife are who attend every game.

The photos were for my own viewing and my family, not for social media but of course she wasn't to know that. I had the feeling she just wanted to feel important, she was most unfriendly too. I honestly think if I had stood somewhere else and not next to her nothing would have been said. Phone photos of course seem to be allowed for some reason.

Anyhow it's passed now, will I take my camera with me the next time? probably and if she says anything I will try and discuss the Why's and wherefores of photographing children. I will be discussing it further with my son though as both he and my ex husband play active rolls in the club ie linesmen when needed, I would like to get their view of things.

Thank you all who have contributed to the thread offering advice and knowledge it's been most helpful.
 
Maggie, write to the club, explain politely what happened and ask them their policy and what it would take to be allowed to take photographs for family memories.

Then if you believe it's not a satisfactory response, the local papers are always seeking content. I went with the angle of families denied memories etc. Make it factual add in some content, such as RFC approve and positively encourage photography, there's a link above or the club guidelines are here:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...afeguardingToolkitprinterfriendly_Neutral.pdf


Sorry but I think these assumptions that all photographers are suspicious and the unacceptable behaviour of the insults and accusations need to be challenged, otherwise this rediculous mumsnet attitude wins.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top