Children at sports events

Roger Hicks · Jun 18, 2007

DBP said:
It's a funny thing. I take pictures of random kids around the neighborhood all the time, and only get smiles, waves, and requests for copies (which I fill if i can find the parent later). I keep expecting someone to to object, but it doesn't happen. I don't know if it is because I live in an art-friendly area, or just don't look threatening. Could be both, of course. And I do get random people walking up and asking me questions (about cameras, or for directions) wherever I go, so maybe it's me.

Same here (rural France). Thank the gods that there are still plenty of sane people in the world.

Winderful quote from a circus owner, when I asked if it was OK to publish pictures from his circus.

"Of course. Why not? They are your pictures."

(Mind you, I gave him a CD of the pics, with a release for any publicity for the circus)

Cheers,

Roger

reub2000 · Jun 18, 2007

Taking pictures of kids playing soccer does not make you a pedophile. You want pictures so that you can have pictures your kids as kids. There should be no other explanation needed.

AgX · Jun 18, 2007

In that `name the photographer´ thread we just came about a Cartier-Bresson photograph of playing children. Does it mean that it and some of his other street photography shown in an US exhibition will be scrutinized retrospectively...

copake_ham · Jun 18, 2007

AgX said:
In that `name the photographer´ thread we just came about a Cartier-Bresson photograph of playing children. Does it mean that it and some of his other street photography shown in an US exhibition will be scrutinized retrospectively...

Since the OP was in the UK; how is the above quote at all relevant except that once again we have the "political" dragged in by those with some kind of overarching agenda?

Time for Art to fire up the popcorn machine. This thread is definitely veering off into the "fringe"....

DBP · Jun 18, 2007

It's surprising sometimes to open up popular photography magazines from the 40s-60s (or even Life) and see how often people submitted snapshots of kids running around bare-assed. At the time these were considered charming examples of innocence.

I wonder if Coppertone could put up its dog billboards nowadays?

AgX · Jun 18, 2007

copake_ham,

A few days ago you placed me in the fascist corner, now this...

Yes this a political issue! It's about our all freedom being being strangled. Partly by ourselves, as I also stated.

And my ironic hint at US-museums was based on what thebanana reported about the situation in his city. Which I thought to be an US-city. I mixed it up. Sorry, so make it an Canadian museum. It won't change the situation. I'm not hitting at the US but at a certain situation.

Obviously in part of Europe things are not yet this way, but it makes me fear. Fear of ourselves.

Can you live with that?

removed account4 · Jun 18, 2007

DBP said:
I wonder if Coppertone could put up its dog billboards nowadays?

coppertone has changed the image, just as starbucks no longer shows the "bellybutton of the siren" ...

copake_ham · Jun 18, 2007

AgX said:
copake_ham,

A few days ago you placed me in the fascist corner, now this...

Yes this a political issue! It's about our all freedom being being strangled. Partly by ourselves, as I also stated.

And my ironic hint at US-museums was based on what thebanana reported about the situation in his city. Which I thought to be an US-city. I mixed it up. Sorry, so make it an Canadian museum. It won't change the situation. I'm not hitting at the US but at a certain situation.

Obviously in part of Europe things are not yet this way, but it makes me fear. Fear of ourselves.

Can you live with that?

AgX,

Firstly - do you have a name? Mine is George. It is in my signature on this and every post.

Second, I do not think I called you a fascist.

Third, and to the point, what concerned me about your post was it's response to Roger Hicks's.

Somehow, what was a generalized commentary about parental concerns (probably more unwarranted than warranted) about people taking pictures of their kids at play (e.g. sports activities etc.) started to veer into the political.

I believe that Roger (whom I know some here adore) said he first encountered this concern in New York in the mid-1990's. He then said it further manifested itself in the UK by the late-1990's.

The result of which was that this was apparently one of many things that led him to "flee" to France (read his post). There, apparently, parents have no concerns when unknown photographers start taking pictures of their children at play. To that thought, I am at the least, totally skeptical. Are the French "immune" to the concerns parents in other countries have for their children's safety?

Roger has often engineered such twists to threads here - taking the photography into the "political". So my "concern" was not unfounded. After all, why all of a sudden did he start bringing politics into the thread?

The "problem" I had with your post is that you seemed to want to start a "pile on" of "good liberal Europe" versus "bad conservative America".

If I was wrong to react to your post as I did - I apologize. But as a token of photographic evidence - this is the kind of picture you can shoot in NYC:

AgX · Jun 19, 2007

Let me call myself an Old-European.

But that doesn’t keep me from criticizing my own surrounding. Read my post on Agfa/Agfaphoto.

Even if I got ironic that does not mean I do not value this thread. In contrary. This a topic of greatest concern to me. After many years of not practicing photography at all I’m just getting my gear used again. But reading this thread I’m wondering whether it would not be better to put it away again!
I’m into street photography. Though not into children as topic. But even then this attitude could get me, and many of us, into trouble. Just taking photographs of architectural details in the vicinity of a school or kindergarten for example.

There was the question how to react. In one of the first posts Adrian Twiss wrote that he changed his kind of photography because he did not want to be tapped on his shoulder. My answer is, let them tap on our shoulder. If we can’t make people be sensible again, they won’t keep it at tapping…

Back to children. Think of what I wrote about that hurt child. Isn’t that bad enough?

MattKing · Jun 19, 2007

copake_ham said:
Since the OP was in the UK; how is the above quote at all relevant except that once again we have the "political" dragged in by those with some kind of overarching agenda?

Time for Art to fire up the popcorn machine. This thread is definitely veering off into the "fringe"....

George;

I say this with a great deal of respect ....

"Political" is one thing, but "political" is another.

I take "political" as being related to the values, and preferences of the public or, if you prefer, the "body politic".

It varies from culture to culture, and tends to vary when you cross borders, or change continents.

It tends to be an expression of the majority's opinion (or at the very least the plurality's opinion).

As one who lives in the "shadow of the elephant" (one of the best descriptions, in my mind, of the Canadian experience, being next to the USA), I may be overly sensitive to this, but it seems to me that these issues do vary significantly according to national perspectives.

If Roger's experience with the contrasting approaches to photographing children in USA, France and the UK is accurate, I can see no reason not to examine further why those differences exist.

Some of those differences may be "Political" (as compared to "political") and if so, maybe they should be emulated.

Matt

Roger Hicks · Jun 19, 2007

Dear Matt,

George has the thinnest hide on earth when it comes to politics, so if I were you, I'd just put him on your ignore lists, as I have. Usually, if I make the mistake of checking one of his posts, I am reminded why I did this.

A good way to perform a reality check on laws and attitudes is to look at what happens in other countries (and indeed, at other times) where things are more relaxed.

For example, few if any other countries have the American law that everything stops for school buses. Do we see heaps of dead and dying children in the gutter in other countries? If not, perhaps the law is unnecessary.

Likewise, parking motorcycles on the pavement (or to use the more logical American term, sidewalk) is illegal in England. One case, as far as I recall, suggests that this is to stop blind people falling over them. As I have yet to trip over a blind man on his back, feebly waving his arms and legs after tripping over a motorcycle on the sidewalk, even in Paris, the risk may be overrated.

Thirty years ago, in England, no-one thought twice about photographing children playing in the streets, or on the beach. I assume it was the same in the USA. What were the problems this caused?

George accuses me of trying to twist all this into a political statement. Well, if he doesn't like the truth -- a simple observation of what I and many other photographers know to be true -- then he's the twister, and he's the one with the political agenda, not I. He is suffering, though he will almost certainly loathe the term being applied to him, from political correctness: HIS politics.

This paranoia about photographing children is recent, and localized. Time will tell whether it's going to spread, or whether the boil will be lanced.

Several responsible bodies including the RSA have already raised concerns about the over-protection of children, which inhibits their socialization and acquisition of skills, and my own belief (or at least hope) is that reason will prevail.

Cheers,

Roger

ricksplace · Jun 19, 2007

I have not read this whole thread. My daughter started playing socccer when she was 5. She is now 21 and still plays. More often than not, I had a camera with me when I took her to games. I knew a lot of the other parents. I was one of only about two soccer dads(was and still am a single dad), the rest were soccer moms. I often made prints of team shots for the whole team. No one ever questioned me. I took it for granted that I could shoot whenever I wanted, and the team players and parents knew that I was "Stephanie's Dad with the camera."

AgX · Jun 19, 2007

Roger,

It would be fine if things were more relaxed. But where I live I encounter a change in the attitude how children have to be treated, to be approached. Not yet in the way it is depicted here concerning photography.

And in times of easy communication, like this one we are making use of, ideas, anxieties and even paranoia can spread. Even beyond cultural boundaries. And I would not be surprised, if this attitude concerning photography will gain hold here too.

Roger Hicks · Jun 19, 2007

AgX said:
And in times of easy communication, like this one we are making use of, ideas, anxieties and even paranoia can spread.

Especially paranoia.

We can extend this thread. Snapshotters who think they're photographers thanks to their computers are merely a subset of those timorous village-dwellers who think they're worldly-wise sophisticates because of their computers.

Cheers,

Roger

Tom Stanworth · Jun 19, 2007

I say screw it. If my kids are at a sporting event I will photograph them thanks very much. Woe betide anyone that argues with me. I am quite prepared for it to become a big thing as otherwise the idiots supporting the anti line simply get to prmulgate their rubbish unopposed. I am not sorry if I come across as beligerant but I do regard inaction and complicity as equally repugnant. What will the next step be, all children to be cared for in state monitored creches rather thn left to irresponsible paedephile parents? One has to have some trust in fellow human beings otherwise all is truly lost. This does not prevent basic precautions but the current restrictions have more to do with a*** covering and puritanism than they do childrens' interests. Stand up for common sense and argue with those who spread and try to enforce this half-baked nonsense. One usually finds that the 'antis' cannot argue their way out of a paper bag when confronted with intelligent questions on 'why?'

Síle · Jun 19, 2007

bogeyes said:
Are you free to take photographs of children participating in team sports in your part of the world and would you feel comfortable as the photographer?

To return to the OP..

I have coached at and run a children's badminton club in the town for the past 4 years. The last two of which has seen major changes regarding children in sports in Ireland, photography being just one aspect.

The Code of Ethics for Children's sports states the following :
-If the athlete is named, avoid using their photograph.
-If a photograph is used, avoid naming the athlete.
-Ask for the athletes permission to use their image to ensure that they are aware of the way the image is to be used to represent the sport.
-Ask for parental permission to use the athletes image to ensure that parents are aware of the way the image is to be used to represent the sport. A permission form could be used or make an announcement at the start of an event.
-To reduce the risk of inappropriate use, only use images of athletes in suitable dress. The content of the photograph should focus on the activity not on a particular child
-Talk to childrens officer/designated person if you are worried about use of images.

Since these changes our yearly membership forms now include a press and photography release form as standard.

There's no doubt that it's a shame that these changes have occurred, yet as a coach and indeed a parent I see their necessity, both for the child and the adults concerned.

I still take my camera with me on occasion, but it's to take pictures of my own daughters from a Mum's point of view. And I would certainly not object to any other parent's doing the same. The day I can't take pictures of my own children... will be a very sad one.

Síle

Roger Hicks · Jun 19, 2007

Síle said:
There's no doubt that it's a shame that these changes have occurred, yet as a coach and indeed a parent I see their necessity, both for the child and the adults concerned.

Dear Sile,

What is that necessity?

And if it's necessary, why is it a shame?

Cheers,

R.

Tom Stanworth · Jun 19, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Sile,

What is that necessity?

And if it's necessary, why is it a shame?

Cheers,

R.

I think the answer is a pretty clear NO. If someone can explain how a shot of a child running a 50m race or playing football makes them 'vulnerable' to sexually motivated phtographic exploitation I would be interested to know; not the tired old theory but examples. Paedophiles are extremely cunning and banning photography only denies parents and normally interested parents the pleasure of children, aprticipation in important events and the photographs to help cherish those memories. All this over sensitive and usually illogical 'protection' BS has become an end in itself as people battle one another to show just how 'concerned' and 'seriously they take the issue' without the first idea of what they are really combating and therefore what is effective and what is not. Its like security provision. Some people decide what the threat has to be to fit in with their own notion of what they want to do about it. When presented with contrary facts they tend to show little interest when their bubble is burst and their sense of enjoyment/fulfilment/gratification destroyed.

The random 'stranger paedophile' scenario is pretty rare (ie stranger let alone parent taking photos). I was under the impression that it is normally someone the kid knows or someone who gains access to the child and cultivates them. One only has to be aware of the childs activities and movements to deal with 99% of scenarios aside from the handful of 'stranger abduction scenarios'.

The irony here is striking. The teacher advoctes convoluted 'pleasure destroying' procedures for taking a few snaps of the kids when the teacher/scout master/music teacher represents far more of a threat to the children then the other parents as they have the time alone and unmonitored access etc. I cannot take pics of my kids playing footy but the teacher can watch them undress in the locker room and take a shower? This is ALL part of 'we are more responsible' offialdom assuming an ill deserved monopoly on responsibility. Again I am not sorry for being beligerant, but how DARE teachers tell me that I cannot take photos of a sporting contest when they have access to MY children that I cannot possibly monitor and precedent shows that those in such roles frequenly abuse them?

I think parents need to take back responsibility and tell over protective schools, councils, politicians etc where to shove it! Some measures are helpful (such as only nominated people being able to collec kids from school) but this photo stuff is plain lunacy.

copake_ham · Jun 19, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Matt,

George has the thinnest hide on earth when it comes to politics, so if I were you, I'd just put him on your ignore lists, as I have. Usually, if I make the mistake of checking one of his posts, I am reminded why I did this.

A good way to perform a reality check on laws and attitudes is to look at what happens in other countries (and indeed, at other times) where things are more relaxed.

For example, few if any other countries have the American law that everything stops for school buses. Do we see heaps of dead and dying children in the gutter in other countries? If not, perhaps the law is unnecessary.

Likewise, parking motorcycles on the pavement (or to use the more logical American term, sidewalk) is illegal in England. One case, as far as I recall, suggests that this is to stop blind people falling over them. As I have yet to trip over a blind man on his back, feebly waving his arms and legs after tripping over a motorcycle on the sidewalk, even in Paris, the risk may be overrated.

Thirty years ago, in England, no-one thought twice about photographing children playing in the streets, or on the beach. I assume it was the same in the USA. What were the problems this caused?

George accuses me of trying to twist all this into a political statement. Well, if he doesn't like the truth -- a simple observation of what I and many other photographers know to be true -- then he's the twister, and he's the one with the political agenda, not I. He is suffering, though he will almost certainly loathe the term being applied to him, from political correctness: HIS politics.

This paranoia about photographing children is recent, and localized. Time will tell whether it's going to spread, or whether the boil will be lanced.

Several responsible bodies including the RSA have already raised concerns about the over-protection of children, which inhibits their socialization and acquisition of skills, and my own belief (or at least hope) is that reason will prevail.

Cheers,

Roger

Dear Roger,

I thought you had me on your IGNORE list? :confused:

As to your rather odd examples above:

If you really think that requiring drivers to stop when a school bus is discharging passengers is "coddling" children - then I'm glad we Americans are enlightened enough to do so. [Matt, what do they do in Canada?]

And would you please explain why any civilized society would permit a motorized vehicle such as a motorcycle to park on the sidewalk - thereby infringing on space reserved for pedestrians?

As to the OT - the sad fact is - whether we like to admit it or not - there is a growing world wide problem with pedophilia and child pornography. One has to be deliberately "blinded" to deny that the web has created an environment where pedophiles can both easily prey on children (think chatrooms, IM, My Space etc.) and readily traffic in child pornography (and worse).

While the media may indeed "overplay for the sensational", anyone who denies that there is a serious problem, everywhere, is being disingenuous simply for the sake of being so.

The reality is that it is very unlikely you will be challenged shooting pics of your kids at a soccer match or similar sporting event. If the OP made any mistake it was the classic one of "asking for permission" rather than "seeking forgiveness".

What coach, if asked, is going to give a carte blanche to let him photograph? The safe and easy thing to do is say "No!". Would you expect anything else?

Tom Stanworth · Jun 19, 2007

George,

I agree it is an increasing(ly visible) and serious problem. However I am an advocate of only enforcing effective measures rather than those imposed 'because something must be done' with little regard for whether it helps. Not once has the 'something must be done (anything)' justification actually helped apart from impose red tape an irritation on the innocent masses. Usually promising measures are the product of a detailed study and analyis of the problem not knee jerk and amateur sociology/criminolgy to show that an issue is being taken seriously. We know it is serious; they are our children.

The examples you raise reinforce my point. There are many areas where meaures imposed have a direct link to examples and known threats. Banning parent taking photos of kids doing the egg and spoon race is not one of them.

I think it likely that the problem has always been there, only we have not been very good at understanding and tackling it until recently. Certainly modern communications make matters worse.

Roger Hicks · Jun 19, 2007

copake_ham said:
Dear Roger,

I thought you had me on your IGNORE list? :confused:

As to your rather odd examples above:

If you really think that requiring drivers to stop when a school bus is discharging passengers is "coddling" children - then I'm glad we Americans are enlightened enough to do so. [Matt, what do they do in Canada?]

And would you please explain why any civilized society would permit a motorized vehicle such as a motorcycle to park on the sidewalk - thereby infringing on space reserved for pedestrians?

As to the OT - the sad fact is - whether we like to admit it or not - there is a growing world wide problem with pedophilia and child pornography. One has to be deliberately "blinded" to deny that the web has created an environment where pedophiles can both easily prey on children (think chatrooms, IM, My Space etc.) and readily traffic in child pornography (and worse).

While the media may indeed "overplay for the sensational", anyone who denies that there is a serious problem, everywhere, is being disingenuous simply for the sake of being so.

The reality is that it is very unlikely you will be challenged shooting pics of your kids at a soccer match or similar sporting event. If the OP made any mistake it was the classic one of "asking for permission" rather than "seeking forgiveness".

What coach, if asked, is going to give a carte blanche to let him photograph? The safe and easy thing to do is say "No!". Would you expect anything else?

Dear George,

Read my posts. Read what I said, not what you want me to have said. It might be a new experience.

As I said, I sometimes make the mistake looking at some of your posts.

I seem to recall that you are a lawyer. A lawyer who does not read the briefs (posts) and then makes up quotes (I never said anything about 'coddling') is scarcely an ornament to the bar.

Paranoid xenophobia does you no additional favours. Your immediate conclusion seems to have been that by quoting examples of where and when I first encountered these problems, and saying that I had not encountered them where I live now, I was somehow indulging in a political diatribe. France is far from perfect. There is a lot that needs to be changed here. When appropriate, I have no hesitation in saying so, even to French friends.

I am in favour of changing for the better all those things that are wrong with any country. I observed that there are no hecatombs of children despite the fact that other countries do not require stopping for school buses. Likewise, about half Europe has no problem with motorcycles parking on the sidewalk: certainly not enough problems to bring in unnecessary and authoritarian laws banning it. You chose to ignore the substance of my argument, that if there are no problems where such laws do not exist, perhaps they may be an overreaction. Instead you indulged in your familiar cheap trick of jeering.

Perhaps you would care to advance factual arguments next time -- and to read what I write before you 'quote' me again. Consider also that the 'safe and easy thing' is not always the best.

Cheers,

Roger

copake_ham · Jun 19, 2007

Tom Stanworth said:
George,

I agree it is an increasing(ly visible) and serious problem. However I am an advocate of only enforcing effective measures rather than those imposed 'because something must be done' with little regard for whether it helps. Not once has the 'something must be done (anything)' justification actually helped apart from impose red tape an irritation on the innocent masses. Usually promising measures are the product of a detailed study and analyis of the problem not knee jerk and amateur sociology/criminolgy to show that an issue is being taken seriously. We know it is serious; they are our children.

The examples you raise reinforce my point. There are many areas where meaures imposed have a direct link to examples and known threats. Banning parent taking photos of kids doing the egg and spoon race is not one of them.

I think it likely that the problem has always been there, only we have not been very good at understanding and tackling it until recently. Certainly modern communications make matters worse.

Hi Tom,

I think we are more in agreement than not.

My primary point is the the OP placed himself in a no-win situation. Asking the coach for permission to shoot automatically raises an issue that almost begs for denial.

Consider the situation. The coach is busy doing what he does - coaching the kids. An adult walks up, says his kid is on the team and would it be okay to take pictures. Now the coach has to MAKE A DECISION. One he probably had never thought of and had no ready response for.

So what does the coach do? In the particular case presented by the OP he "punted" and said - sure - but only if you ask the other coaches and they agree. It is even more likely that such a coach would take the "safe" way and say "No". After all, he's been approached because he is in charge which is another way of saying he is responsible which is another way of saying he's liable etc.

To me the simple solution is to just start taking your photographs - making sure you're concentrating on your kid. If challenged, then explain who you are and that you're focusing on your kid; thereby establishing YOUR parental authority.

And always remember this simple axiom: It is better to beg for forgiveness, than it is to ask for permission.

copake_ham · Jun 19, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
...... Likewise, about half Europe has no problem with motorcycles parking on the sidewalk: certainly not enough problems to bring in unnecessary and authoritarian laws banning it......

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

I live in an urban area. Laws prohibiting motorcycles from parking on the sidewalk are not "authoritarian". They are necessary so as to preserve space for those of us who choose to walk around town.

Streets are for vehicles; sidewalks are for pedestrians. How you could construe that a by-law regulating that fact is "authoritarian" is, frankly, bizarre.

Snapshot · Jun 19, 2007

At risk of taking this thread slightly askew, I've had an encounter today that gives me pause at photographing children. While at a nearby park that had a fountain, there was a group of children playing and splashing water at each other. I though the spontaneous nature of the moment was worth capturing so I took a couple of pictures of the kids at play.

Unfortunately, a few glares from local bystanders cured me of any desire to continue my picture taking and I slunked away, shamed by my fellow park patrons. Frankly, I was surprised that it seems to be such a taboo to take pictures of kids. I guessed the children's rough age be either late pre-teens or early teens in age and didn't think it would have been an issue.

It seems we've reached a point that picture taking of young folk is tantamount to being a pedophile.

Sirius Glass · Jun 19, 2007

I think asking for permission to photograph in the OP was a mistake.

No one bothered me when I took photos of my children at games. If they had I would have told them to f---- off.

Now photographing childern in school is an interest situation for an administrator. My girlfriend is an elementary school principal. According to the laws, rules and regulations that she has to follow:

Parents, friends and guests at school event are allowed, in fact encouraged, to take all the photos they want, even though some are so rude that they stand up in front of other parents the whole time and block the other parents from seeing. Lets not get into blocking aisles ...

However, if an outsider wants to photograph, especially children at play, then she as principal must [by law] obtain signed parentally releases for every student whether or not their photos will be published prior to any photos being taken. Sometimes the school district will require that they approve the photo shoot prior to giving permission.

I am not commenting on the appropriateness of her legal requirements, only on the difficultly of deciding which side of the line a situation falls when she first observes that the situation may be a gray area. Then she is required to act by telling the photographer to get the release first. Her employer does not giver her any latitude and directs that when in doubt, require releases and ask forgiveness later.

Steve

Children at sports events

Roger Hicks

reub2000

AgX

copake_ham

DBP

AgX

removed account4

copake_ham

Attachments

AgX

MattKing

Moderator

Roger Hicks

ricksplace

AgX

Roger Hicks

Tom Stanworth

Síle

Roger Hicks

Tom Stanworth

copake_ham

Tom Stanworth

Roger Hicks

copake_ham

copake_ham

Snapshot

Sirius Glass

Children at sports events

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency