Parents Banned from Photographing Children

Larry Bullis · Jun 19, 2009

It is the first time I've heard about PARENTS being forbidden to take pics at school, but for non parents, here in the US, photography of students is generally prohibited without making special arrangements in which the parents must sign on. The reason for this, as explained to me when a friend who was working for the school paper got busted for sneaking around with a camera, is that in case a non-custodial parent might see the image of a child, a kidnapping by a non-custodial parent could result.

Kids have been kidnapped, so there is a legitimate concern, deplorable as it is. Two concerns are involved: 1) fear of such incidents on the part of the school, and 2) fear that the school will become the target of litigation.

There's a question of managing risk. If I photograph my child or grandchild at school, other children will most likely be imaged as well. Possible publication excepted, distribution would likely be informal through interpersonal networks. What likelihood is there that the picture will somehow find its way to the attention of an angry non-custodial parent who will actually act upon the information? Likelihood is enhanced by the possibility that some of the other parents may have been friends, but disenhanced by the distance necessary for the non-custodial parent not to already know the whereabouts of the child.

I've been a photographer all my life, photographed my own children and their classmates at school when they were young, and would love to photograph my grandchildren as well, but I try to work within the rules which I also make an effort to understand. At least here in the US, as far as I know, parents are able to decide whether the children may be photographed rather than a blanket rule exclusion of everyone under any circumstances.

perkeleellinen · Jun 19, 2009

From a UK perspective, I think the parents concerned could have changed this school policy by mounting a cohesive voice and perhaps appealing to the governors or getting the media involved. That they apparently did not, says much about the apathetic nature of critical voice in Britain.

The government body that overseas the Data Protection Act in the UK recently warned that many schools were being over zealous and banning photography on the grounds of an extremely loose, and in fact wrong, interpretation of the law.

I've read some cynics claim that some schools ban photography to increase sales of official DVDs of events.

I'm not sure if kidnapping is driving this issue in the UK. I would place my bets on a general increase in reporting of paedophilia cases and the oft reported claim that pictures are 'uploaded to dodgy sites'. That, I think, is becoming what Cohen called a 'moral panic' and it that regard, the school's no photography rule may be driven from pressure from below, rather than above (a 'nanny state').

kevs · Jun 19, 2009

This probably has a lot to do with it; a totally illogical but understandable over-reaction.

Sirius Glass · Jun 19, 2009

My girlfriend is a principal with the LAUSD [Los Angeles Unified School District] and we have talked about this. The LAUSD policy is that someone other than a parent cannot enter the school grounds or classroom to take photographs. Anyone including parents have to sign in at the school office and get permission to be on school property. Then they are a non-parent [she has had movie studio and free lance photographers request permission to photograph or film.] they need to fill out a form for permission. The request for permission covers use of the photographs, insurance and several other items. If the clearly defined criteria is met permission is granted if the involved students have signed consents from their parents. Getting permission does not take very long to get. She does not make the final decision, that is handled by administrator that handle these requests on a regular basis. So she has no flexibility in the determination.

When someone is photographing from outside the school, she is required by her employer as part of her responsibilities to tell the people that they have to leave and what the process is for getting permission. If they fail to leave, that becomes a school police issue and she backs off and informs school police. What they do is out of her control.

This is about photographing while school is in session. She does not get involved in the photography of student playing sports.

Steve

pentaxuser · Jun 19, 2009

PeteZ8 said:
I'm SO glad I don't live in the UK. I don't want to turn this into a political discussion but the more I hear about the UK the more I am afraid for them. It seems everything over there is either restricted or banned these days. Very, very scary.

Now be fair! At least we've always been very relaxed about our representatives expenses but we are even getting strict on those as well despite a game attempt by Parliament to stay relaxed about it. Where will it all end? Next thing we'll be expecting politicians to show honesty and integrity. or worse become seekers of wisdom and truth

pentaxuser

23mjm · Jun 19, 2009

I see an opportunity for employment here!!!! If only I lived across the pond in Merry Ole England. I am not a parent so I can shoot the children with out offending the school.

Thomas Wilson · Jun 19, 2009

pentaxuser said:
Now be fair! At least we've always been very relaxed about our representatives expenses but we are even getting strict on those as well despite a game attempt by Parliament to stay relaxed about it. Where will it all end? Next thing we'll be expecting politicians to show honesty and integrity. or worse become seekers of wisdom and truth

pentaxuser

I sincerely hope that Labour's imminent melt-down is contagious. They're dropping like flies over there.

Steve Smith · Jun 19, 2009

2F/2F said:
Have you ever been to the U.K? New Yorkers are the closest American equivalent that I can drum up in my mind...Londoners, anyhow.....

That's a bit of a generalisation. I'm sure all countries are the same with regard to different attitudes in different regions.

To think that all of the British are like the stereotype Londoner is like assuming all Americans are like New Yorkers or all of the French are like Parisiens.

Sometimes visitors from big cities come to some of the villages on the island I live on and can't come to terms with the fact that everyone says hello to them as they walk around.

I'm sure there are US regions like that and I know there are in France. Probably everywhere else too.

If you really want to know what the British are like, watch the episode of Family Guy where the Drunken Clam pub is bought by an Englishman and turned into a British bar. Failing that, Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins is also very realistic!

Steve.

Steve Smith · Jun 19, 2009

kevs said:
This probably has a lot to do with it; a totally illogical but understandable over-reaction.

Exactly. The problem is that because it was reported, the paranoid amongst us seem to think that it is the norm instead of an isolated case.

Steve.

Steve Smith · Jun 19, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I got carried away and thought that English and American are the same language.

They were once!

Steve.

Akki14 · Jun 19, 2009

I don't like the tone of generalisations going on in this thread.
However, I'll point out that when I get on the tube into London, I don't think there's a whole bunch of "real" londoners in there. It's a big ol' international mixing pot like NYC is. And there are many many different people in the world and unfortunately the loud obnoxious people are the most visible/audible in any situation giving a bad face to any society.

If you enjoyed the OP linked article, you may also enjoy the HSE's myth of the month
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm

Akki14 · Jun 19, 2009

oh look i found the appropriate myth already
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/mar09.htm
"Health and safety laws don’t stop children having fun but ill-considered and overprotective actions do."

Larry Bullis · Jun 19, 2009

The root of a lot of these issues, at least under systems that are supposed to resemble democracy, is that half the population is below average. Funny how just about everyone nearly always seems to forget that.

Steve Smith · Jun 19, 2009

Akki14 said:
"Health and safety laws don’t stop children having fun but ill-considered and overprotective actions do."

I bring up this point whenever anyone complains about Health and Safety banning something.

Usually though, it's not H&S at fault but the accountants and managers worried about possible insurance claims.

Not too many years ago, things used to be risk assessed and allowed if there was acceptable risk. e.g. a children's playground had slides which were potentially dangerous but because no one had ever fallen off of one before, it was considered unlikely to happen in the future and was considered an accepatable risk.

Now though, anything with any risk involved, however small, is to be avoided.

That's why all the slides in council playgrounds in my county have been replaced by smaller versions.

Nothing to do with Health and Safety which is there to protect us but more to do with narrow minded accountants and managers.

EDIT: That's a co-incidence. I wrote my bit about playgrounds before reading your HSE link about the same subject.

I think this one sums it up: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/sept08.htm

Steve.

Sirius Glass · Jun 19, 2009

bowzart said:
The root of a lot of these issues, at least under systems that are supposed to resemble democracy, is that half the population is below average. Funny how just about everyone nearly always seems to forget that.

Oh, but if that were true.

The last few decades have shown that the size of the that half the population that is below average has increased dramatically! In fact the there are more people below 100 IQ than above it!

Steve

Steve Smith · Jun 19, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
The last few decades have shown that the size of the that half the population that is below average has increased dramatically! In fact the there are more people below 100 IQ than above it!

And most people have greater than the average number of legs!

Steve.

rternbach · Jun 19, 2009

I have been a visitor and a consultant in a number of public and private schools in Massachusetts and Connecticut though not as a photographer. I can report that in recent years there has been a significant increase in security concerns in all the schools to the point that just about anybody who enters the grounds of a school, or is near the grounds of a school, can expect to be approached by a policeman, teacher, or school official to explain why they are there and present a pass or an i.d. Being a stranger with a camera in your hands without having a visible school issued visitor pass around your neck will guarantee that someone will approach you and ask for your pass. Even a student, God bless them, may ask you who you are and why you are there--even with a visible pass.

The fact that parents have been banned from taking photos of their children at sporting events is regrettable but can be understood in this context of heightened security conerns. There are ways to approach this problem but they may involve the parents association, the superintendent of schools, the principal, the police and the teachers in the most difficult cases. But wait, there's may be the school committee to answer to as well.

2F/2F · Jun 19, 2009

Steve Smith said:
That's a bit of a generalisation. I'm sure all countries are the same with regard to different attitudes in different regions.

To think that all of the British are like the stereotype Londoner is like assuming all Americans are like New Yorkers or all of the French are like Parisiens.

Sometimes visitors from big cities come to some of the villages on the island I live on and can't come to terms with the fact that everyone says hello to them as they walk around.

I'm sure there are US regions like that and I know there are in France. Probably everywhere else too.

If you really want to know what the British are like, watch the episode of Family Guy where the Drunken Clam pub is bought by an Englishman and turned into a British bar. Failing that, Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins is also very realistic!

Steve.

Yes, it is a generalization. Not only that, but it is only based on my own experience, and it was attempting to be funny. I was simply trying to lighten things up a bit with some "humor". Same with my European vs. American comments earlier. I trust people caught that and were not offended. I though it was pretty obviously a joke because few people would seriously say such things, especially on this fairly reasonably polite and intelligent forum.

Steve Smith · Jun 20, 2009

2F/2F said:
I trust people caught that and were not offended. I though it was pretty obviously a joke because few people would seriously say such things, especially on this fairly reasonably polite and intelligent forum.

Well I was certainly not offended. Hence my liking for the Family Guy and Mary Poppins English stereotypes from an American perspective. I love them!

Steve.

archphoto · Jun 20, 2009

This discusion is acutualy sad and scary at the same time.

Sad because the land of freedom has lost it's freedom and has become a scared nation worrying about the safety of their children and themselves and thinking that more safety measurements mean more safety and is accepting less freedom for that illusion.
A generation that has lost it's childhood.
A country that does not understand that guns are more dangerous than camera's......... sad.

Peter

rternbach · Jun 20, 2009

"...Photographing Children"

rternbach said:
I have been a visitor and a consultant in a number of public and private schools in Massachusetts and Connecticut though not as a photographer. I can report that in recent years there has been a significant increase in security concerns in all the schools to the point that just about anybody who enters the grounds of a school, or is near the grounds of a school, can expect to be approached by a policeman, teacher, or school official to explain why they are there and present a pass or an i.d. Being a stranger with a camera in your hands without having a visible school issued visitor pass around your neck will guarantee that someone will approach you and ask for your pass. Even a student, God bless them, may ask you who you are and why you are there--even with a visible pass.

The fact that parents have been banned from taking photos of their children at sporting events is regrettable but can be understood in this context of heightened security conerns. There are ways to approach this problem but they may involve the parents association, the superintendent of schools, the principal, the police and the teachers in the most difficult cases. But wait, there may be the school committee to answer to as well.

And don't forget a town's Board of Selectmen, bless their hearts.

-RT

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 20, 2009

I was at a friend's house last night for a wonderful time with BBQ supper and just spending time talking about this and that. They have two children, Cassidy and Carly, three dogs, Poppy, Pistol, and Maxine, a donkey, Angel, and a pony, Pete. I willfully photographed all of these contributions to their beautiful countryside household. When I process the film, I aim to foremost give prints to the parents if they turn out any good. But they have given me written permission to use any images for my own purposes as well. If I get faced with a lawsuit for photographing these children, and showing the results, I guess I will be a martyr. But I promise you that I will stand in the face of the law and breathe it in the face with my complaint. And I'll make sure I eat tons of garlic before I do.

The whole discussion is really sad, and I ask myself what the he!! the world is coming to. People always say that guns aren't dangerous, but rather the person using it. But hasn't it always been this way? Hasn't there always been the a$$hole to ruin it for the rest of us? You can't decide the actions of all people based on what a small percentage of the population does. That's not democracy. That's police state. And I will not have it. Period.

rternbach · Jun 20, 2009

"...Photographing Children"

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I was at a friend's house last night for a wonderful time with BBQ supper and just spending time talking about this and that. They have two children, Cassidy and Carly, three dogs, Poppy, Pistol, and Maxine, a donkey, Angel, and a pony, Pete. I willfully photographed all of these contributions to their beautiful countryside household. When I process the film, I aim to foremost give prints to the parents if they turn out any good. But they have given me written permission to use any images for my own purposes as well. If I get faced with a lawsuit for photographing these children, and showing the results, I guess I will be a martyr. But I promise you that I will stand in the face of the law and breathe it in the face with my complaint. And I'll make sure I eat tons of garlic before I do.

The whole discussion is really sad, and I ask myself what the he!! the world is coming to. People always say that guns aren't dangerous, but rather the person using it. But hasn't it always been this way? Hasn't there always been the a$$hole to ruin it for the rest of us? You can't decide the actions of all people based on what a small percentage of the population does. That's not democracy. That's police state. And I will not have it. Period.

Getting a signed release is probably a good practice. As far as the culture at large is concerned, people are scared by, and worried about, things they read in the news and see on tv. "If it bleeds it leads" often appears to be the policy guiding the news media. Given this climate of fear and suspicion it is advisable to remain non-confrontational and above all avoid direct clashes with the police state if you can help it. But, having said that, if you're forced into it, and your back is up against the wall, I hope you have lots of "lawyers, guns and money" and fast cameras loaded with plenty of film as well.

-RT

catem · Jun 20, 2009

Well. What do you expect if you read the Telegraph (unless you read the Daily Mail)

More seriously, this appears to be a decision made by a School's Board of Governers – which in this country have tremendous freedom to make decisions regarding the day-to-day running of their schools – this kind thing, uniform etc. It is the very opposite of State control. In fact, you could also argue that, if freedom is necessary, this kind of decision should be allowed. (No, I'm not defending it). Also, parents elect at least some of the governers and are able to get rid of them if they don't like the decisions they are making. Whether elected or not, the governers are supposed to represent parents. If they are out of line, and parents are unhappy, there are ways to deal with it.

This is an isolated, seemingly hyped case. . Incidentally, the last time I was at a school function there were so many digital cameras flashing and movie cameras whirring we were hard-put to see our little darlings. I would dearly like the banning of all cameras from school events. But not for the reasons parents were banned in this case. (It's OK, I'm not serious – quite).

Yes, this kind of decision should be questioned - but as far as I can see, this event is nothing to do either with any law in the UK or general practice.

(edit - for the sake of balance, or more importantly to avoid getting slammed, I should add that the Telegraph did a damn fine job recently on the M.Ps expenses issue. Also I don't rate other newspapers much either. Just that normally the Telegraph and the Mail are particularly rubbish ).

Steve Smith · Jun 20, 2009

rternbach said:
The fact that parents have been banned from taking photos of their children at sporting events is regrettable but can be understood in this context of heightened security conerns.

I don't understand this comment. How can the taking of a photograph be considered a security risk?

Steve.

Parents Banned from Photographing Children

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency