Parents Banned from Photographing Children
-
- Thread starter zinnanti
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Voigtländer 25mm ƒ/4 VM lens for Leica M mount, Ex. clean, $200
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
For Sale Partial roll of 70mm late date (2011) Portra 160 NC, frozen
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Berthiot Eurygraphe 180mm f/4 (France, c1900)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale FS: Rittreck Wista Revolving Graflok 4x5 Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
"...Photographing Children"
Hi Steve,
Yes, seems a bit odd I know. But if you hope to one day use the photos commercially it probably is advisable. I guess you could wait until the day comes that you want to publish the photos and go back to the parents at that time. You decide.
-RT
Hi Steve,
Yes, seems a bit odd I know. But if you hope to one day use the photos commercially it probably is advisable. I guess you could wait until the day comes that you want to publish the photos and go back to the parents at that time. You decide.
-RT
Anyone who wants to use photos of random kids at a school sports day commercially (i.e. for commercial exploitation, i.e. advertising, i.e. the only thing a model release is actually required for) without asking permission frankly deserves whatever opprobrium they get. I can't possibly envisage why anyone other than the dodgiest shyster calling himself a photographer would attempt to take that route.
"...Photographing Children"
Yes indeed! But it may be a that this requirement was overlooked in the past by some photographers (no names, please) when photographing in third world countries.
Yes indeed! But it may be a that this requirement was overlooked in the past by some photographers (no names, please) when photographing in third world countries.
you haunt the TP forums like I do, and even looking around the American photo sites/forums, there is an increasing amount of talk about "I was hassled by a security guard for taking pictures being told it was a security risk"Surly you must know that any one with a camera, MF or LF is selling the images to terrorist cells around the world..
Oh hang on what about all those mobile phones with cameras
On track, unfortunately the report in the Telegraph is not new (must have been a slow news day). I know of a number of parents who's schools have banned parents taking pictures of there kids and sports day, Christmas plays etc. Sometimes it is the school, some times it is other parents (so the school says) who object, "just in case there child might be on the image too"
However they can by the official DVD from the school afterwards.
Oh I doubt it
us up North in Manchester can be a little rough around the edges, but I am sure there are a few city bars in America you would not go into without a flack jacket and a magnum "just in case it kicked off" 
SuzanneR
Moderator
Say it ain't so. Seems we're getting to the bottom of it... money talks and, well, you know the rest.
Please excuse the link to the sensationalist Daily Mail, but this is one of the news stories I had in mind when I commented the other day.
http://tiny.cc/bpfJj
http://tiny.cc/bpfJj
An awfully large quantity of broad brush-stokes being wafted about here on the basis of the decisions of one school's Head Teacher...
BTW: Origin of the English "Public School" = a privately run school. This originates in the midst of time. It was common for the sons of the gentry to be schooled at home by private tutors. Eventually, with the rise of the merchant class there was a need to school the sons of the merchants and shopkeepers. Suitable schools were set up, usually by the Church, and were available for any member of the public (who could afford the fees) to send their sons. Hence the term "Public School" - i.e. a school that is open to the public to attend, as opposed to the private schooling of the gentry.
The OED notes the first published use of the term in 1580:
BTW: Origin of the English "Public School" = a privately run school. This originates in the midst of time. It was common for the sons of the gentry to be schooled at home by private tutors. Eventually, with the rise of the merchant class there was a need to school the sons of the merchants and shopkeepers. Suitable schools were set up, usually by the Church, and were available for any member of the public (who could afford the fees) to send their sons. Hence the term "Public School" - i.e. a school that is open to the public to attend, as opposed to the private schooling of the gentry.
The OED notes the first published use of the term in 1580:
Articles like this really scare me. How did we get here? I know it started here in the US.
Best I can tell the Reagan Administration did something called the Meese Commission Report in 1985. There was a brief section on kiddie porn,(which I've read). It was not sensational. The government,( and especially the media) have spent the last quarter century making it so.
The media loves taking simple issues and creating screaming paranoia. They are now network TV shows where men are entrapped making online dates w/ teen girls. And everyone goes ,"hoo-ray! - lock-up the pervert!" . I think it's mostly a big scam to make us watch and read their stuff.
There have always been pedophiles, and always will be. I think there are probably less now than 50 years ago. Go to the FBI website and read the actual stats.
According to the media, there's a child molester hiding behind every rock and bush, - just waiting.
I don't believe it.
And some kids are now learning to accuse adults of unbelieveable things to deflect trouble off themselves.
Because we teach them "all about" predators in school now.
People's lives have been ruined for no reason. That really does happen every day.
I'm glad I'm not a teacher or Daycare worker. Scary profession these days.
As for photos of kids - where are these so called kiddie porn websites? I've never ran across one. Ever.
It's a scam folks.
Best I can tell the Reagan Administration did something called the Meese Commission Report in 1985. There was a brief section on kiddie porn,(which I've read). It was not sensational. The government,( and especially the media) have spent the last quarter century making it so.
The media loves taking simple issues and creating screaming paranoia. They are now network TV shows where men are entrapped making online dates w/ teen girls. And everyone goes ,"hoo-ray! - lock-up the pervert!" . I think it's mostly a big scam to make us watch and read their stuff.
There have always been pedophiles, and always will be. I think there are probably less now than 50 years ago. Go to the FBI website and read the actual stats.
According to the media, there's a child molester hiding behind every rock and bush, - just waiting.
I don't believe it.
And some kids are now learning to accuse adults of unbelieveable things to deflect trouble off themselves.
Because we teach them "all about" predators in school now.
People's lives have been ruined for no reason. That really does happen every day.
I'm glad I'm not a teacher or Daycare worker. Scary profession these days.
As for photos of kids - where are these so called kiddie porn websites? I've never ran across one. Ever.
It's a scam folks.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, January 29, 2009
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, January 29, 2009
How subtle! This looks like a request for some political discussion.
In my own experience, all this nonsense usually has a monetary reason somewhere under the covers.
As a parent, I have taken photos of my kids at school functions, sports events and such for many years.
In some instances, I have been approached by "overzealous officials " who proceed to demand I stop taking photos. In all cases, I have challenged their legal right to do so , private or no private school.
The result has invariably been the same: after a small tussle, they back off.
Once I press the issue and dig out what the real reason was for the demand, it turns out "someone else was the official photographer" for the event(s).
And of course, me taking the photos stops that someone else - usually a relative of the complainant - from making a few bucks out of the event.
So, bottom line for me: always challenge these "defenders of the faith" when they approach you with their idiotic demands.
It's worth it. If nothing else, just for the annoyance factor: I love annoying self-righteous pricks.
As a parent, I have taken photos of my kids at school functions, sports events and such for many years.
In some instances, I have been approached by "overzealous officials " who proceed to demand I stop taking photos. In all cases, I have challenged their legal right to do so , private or no private school.
The result has invariably been the same: after a small tussle, they back off.
Once I press the issue and dig out what the real reason was for the demand, it turns out "someone else was the official photographer" for the event(s).
And of course, me taking the photos stops that someone else - usually a relative of the complainant - from making a few bucks out of the event.
So, bottom line for me: always challenge these "defenders of the faith" when they approach you with their idiotic demands.
It's worth it. If nothing else, just for the annoyance factor: I love annoying self-righteous pricks.
My wife spent a decade or so in the newspaper business, graphic arts and set up and the like. The basic mode of operation was "If it bleeds, it leads"
About a year ago, a peculiar situation happened in a vehicle registration location in my area, a transgender person was welcomed by an employee who said ''Mr''. The person felt very offended and asked to see the management to make a complaint, it scared them to the point that they forbade all the employees from using MR. Or Mme... Correctness is a decease, I tell ya.
I have never encountered resistance to my photographing students and spectators in sporting events in rural Missouri. Perhaps it helps that I given the schools and some of the subjects many thousands of d****** images and never charged for this service. A stranger photographing in these circumstances may arouse more suspicion.
I can hardly wait until PETA steps in to protect the animals from being photographed
PETA has been such a pain to farmers, ranchers, and meat processers that some of those people have attempted to ban photography of much agricultural land and facilities. Fortunately, few if any such laws are still in effect.
Eight years? I've found phtographic information from the 1840s still valid and useful.
It's already against the law to photograph animals if you are trying to expose their abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,816
- Format
- 35mm
It's a sad world we live in, and, re-reading some of this 2009 thread, it's getting worse. On two occasions in the last few years I have stumbled on scenes which would have made beautiful prize-winning shots.... children fishing in a stream, and another with tiny kids peering into a fountain. In both cases, their Mums were supervising them, it was a public area, and I would have been delighted to send prints of any pictures taken. BUT, as an older guy on my own with a couple of serious-looking cameras (my wife was some distance away), I was literally SCARED to make any approach for fear of possible reaction. Something is very wrong somewhere that we 99.999% of decent people have been forced to feel this way ?
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
++++++1
It's particularly egregious because the place where the danger is greatest of children being abused is in the family home, by a family member.
The image of the creepy lone middle-aged man as potential abuser is much promoted by the media, especially the tabloids who feed upon creating public fear, but "stranger danger" is well down the league table comparatively.
Which of course is not to say that there are not too many predatory lone abusers, as well as gangs, but plenty of those are fathers, brothers and uncles too.
I've made similar comments before in similar threads, and got shouted down for my trouble; but anyone who has worked in social or mental health care will recognise this, and there is plenty of published research to support and verify anecdotal claims.
I can't speak for the US or other countries, but I'd be amazed if there was much difference across nations.
The image of the creepy lone middle-aged man as potential abuser is much promoted by the media, especially the tabloids who feed upon creating public fear, but "stranger danger" is well down the league table comparatively.
Which of course is not to say that there are not too many predatory lone abusers, as well as gangs, but plenty of those are fathers, brothers and uncles too.
I've made similar comments before in similar threads, and got shouted down for my trouble; but anyone who has worked in social or mental health care will recognise this, and there is plenty of published research to support and verify anecdotal claims.
I can't speak for the US or other countries, but I'd be amazed if there was much difference across nations.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |