Photography of children.

Energize · 11 Jun 2012 at 05:09

So when I was showing off my new camera at my riding school the owner said, that I couldn't have any children in the frame of any pictures without their parents permission because of some child protection laws or something and that some kids were in foster care and if someone saw a photo of them on the internet they would know their whereabouts (quite far-fetched I know), and so on.

Is there any legal basis to this or is it just misinformation?

She then asked if I would take of photographs of an activity day at the stables, as if I could be bothered with that after her imposing those kind of restrictions!

I believe there are restrictions on taking photographs of those that a court has ordered their identity not be disclosed, but is that going to be the case here?

THC_SsSsSnake · 11 Jun 2012 at 07:28

When my daughter has school events we have to sign a form to either agree or not to having photographs taken or take any ourselves etc. so yes there is a protection law in place.not sure of the full requirements though.

Hodders · 11 Jun 2012 at 09:23

You are always better looking at these things from two angles:

Legal - you are on private land, the owner of the land can ask you not to take photos. But once you are on public land (pavement/road etc) you can take whatever pictures you like.

Pragmatically - Be nice, be reasonable. If the owner had asked me I would stop or tell them that I would only photograph my child. Yes if children are in care and/or at risk then there are lots of good reasons why they shouldn't be photographed.

frosty03 · 11 Jun 2012 at 09:27

If you are on private property, then its the owners discretion. They can just as easily kick you off the property. Condition of staying, no photos of kids, dont see any grey area there.

If you were on public property and photographing from the road/sidewalk then TTFO, but be prepared to answer "some questions" from the fuzz if a compliant is made. Not saying you're wrong, but nontheless, you may get questioned.

As for the activity day, depends on if you're being paid/not. Paid, do what they want if you want to take up the contract. Not paid, lay down your conditions or tell them to get another photographer.

Busa · 11 Jun 2012 at 15:36

What is so difficult to understand?..i think it should be obvious to any photographer that in this day and age you don't photograph Children without the parents/guardian`s permission. As a parent I wouldn't want anyone taking Photo`s of my Children without me being there!

Caracus2k · 11 Jun 2012 at 15:43

Energize said:
Is there any legal basis to this or is it just misinformation?

As above the only legal basis is that of you being on private land and that you could be asked to leave if the owner or their agent requests you to.

On public land the only realistic prohibitions to taking photographs would be if your were causing an obstruction to the public highway with a tripod or similiar

Caracus2k · 11 Jun 2012 at 15:48

Busa said:
What is so difficult to understand?..i think it should be obvious to any photographer that in this day and age you don't photograph Children without the parents/guardian`s permission. As a parent I wouldn't want anyone taking Photo`s of my Children without me being there!

I think its important to differentiate between photos of a child and those that may include them in a wider shot. Had some idiot the other week trying to tell me that I should delete a wide angle photo taken of London from a view point that would have included an area of parkland where his children were playing. Needless to say I told him to go away and when he threatened to call the police I said fine I will wait and see how you get on with that!

Busa · 11 Jun 2012 at 16:05

Caracus2k said:
I think its important to differentiate between photos of a child and those that may include them in a wider shot. Had some idiot the other week trying to tell me that I should delete a wide angle photo taken of London from a view point that would have included an area of parkland where his children were playing. Needless to say I told him to go away and when he threatened to call the police I said fine I will wait and see how you get on with that!

I agree that common sense should reign...in the real world today Parents are very protective...sometimes to much but its understandable. I take a lot of vehicle photo`s and tend to pixelate if any kids are in view in the vehicles. I do know the laws regarding photography in a public place as i have an on going complaint against a member of Gwent Police force in regards to photography in a public place.

Energize · 11 Jun 2012 at 16:34

Hodders said:
You are always better looking at these things from two angles:

Legal - you are on private land, the owner of the land can ask you not to take photos. But once you are on public land (pavement/road etc) you can take whatever pictures you like.

Pragmatically - Be nice, be reasonable. If the owner had asked me I would stop or tell them that I would only photograph my child. Yes if children are in care and/or at risk then there are lots of good reasons why they shouldn't be photographed.

Ofc being pragmatic, but I was just wondering whether there was any legal basis for what she was saying. Her opinion may be different if she knew differently.

Because based on what I can tell there aren't any legal restrictions as such on taking photographs, as long as you have the landowners permission.

Just don't want to get arrested over some absurd law, like the people being arrested over taking photographs of landmarks. Not so bothered about neurotic parents who don't want their kids photographed.

Busa · 11 Jun 2012 at 16:44

Well you should be bothered about "neurotic" parents.. they are responsible for their children and have every right not to want their kids to be photographed...i would rather be faced with a sworn in Police Constable than an angry Mum/Dad!! but each to there own and this is just my opinion.

adbp1 · 11 Jun 2012 at 20:45

frosty03 said:
If you are on private property, then its the owners discretion. They can just as easily kick you off the property. Condition of staying, no photos of kids, dont see any grey area there.

If you were on public property and photographing from the road/sidewalk then TTFO, but be prepared to answer "some questions" from the fuzz if a compliant is made. Not saying you're wrong, but nontheless, you may get questioned.

.

exactly this! on public road/sidewalk you automatically get copyright aswell.

as for "in todays world" dont take pictures of children, i dont give a monkeys, i will take pictures if i want and if you dont like it tuff tittys, im a parent as well and to be honest how the hell are you gonna stop those pedos from taking the picture if they really want it!!?? most of the time you wouldnt even know they taking it.

Busa · 11 Jun 2012 at 21:00

Like i say..each to his own.

Ksanti · 11 Jun 2012 at 21:18

I don't understand all this hulluballoo about pedos and cameras. I mean honestly. Unless your child is doing something really strange, then nothing is going to be any more sexual than stuff you can find very easily and very legally on the internet and in lifestyle magazines, so why would the supposed paedo go to all the effort?

ARD · 11 Jun 2012 at 21:58

For children you really should be CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked. Yes, this is again a load of bo**ocks, but, there are legalities when taking photos of children. In the norm parental permission is more than adequate. But, for children in foster care there are legalities, again, the foster carer should be able to grant permission, but, in all cases it is better to seek parental approval prior to uploading onto the internet etc.

AHarvey · 11 Jun 2012 at 23:01

If parents don't want their kids photographed, don't take them out in public. On private land it's a whole different matter however. I've taken pictures that include kids and had no issues, I've also had people actually take photos of my daughter and then come to show me the photo.

You don't need a CRB check for taking photos of kids either.

DB_SamX · 11 Jun 2012 at 23:31

It's a shame, because some children are really photogenic, especially when they are playing and pulling faces. I make the most of it when I'm somewhere there's children/toddlers and I know the parents.

frosty03 · 11 Jun 2012 at 23:53

Not to mention that a pedo will more than likely use an easy to conceal point and shoot than a hulking big SLR with a gigantic lens, on a tripod! Or even wear a concealed video/camera.

Those with SLRs are the ones to ignore, the ones without cameras near kids are the ones to watch closely.... duh....

D.P. · 12 Jun 2012 at 00:47

DB_SamX said:
It's a shame, because some children are really photogenic, especially when they are playing and pulling faces. I make the most of it when I'm somewhere there's children/toddlers and I know the parents.

I make the most of it even if I don't know the parents. I don't photograph people much but if I am in the park and their are kids playing they make much better photographs than the parents having a fag on the bench!

I'm lucky I have never been approached, and I don't now if i would care at all. I will happily explain what I am doing and reassure them that I wont be putting the photos online if their face unless recognizable unless they sign a release form (photos of people don't fit in my professional natural portfolio but do make up a few % of my stock portfolio where I need model releases).

Maybe I would be more careful at a beach/swimming pool etc., but in a park with kids playing - not a chance in hell I would ask the parents for permission first, and only after the photos if I want a model release.

V F · 12 Jun 2012 at 02:32

Caracus2k said:
I think its important to differentiate between photos of a child and those that may include them in a wider shot. Had some idiot the other week trying to tell me that I should delete a wide angle photo taken of London from a view point that would have included an area of parkland where his children were playing. Needless to say I told him to go away and when he threatened to call the police I said fine I will wait and see how you get on with that!

I had to read that 5 times due to how insane it has gotten. I shake my head with complete despair. We've really lost the plot.

Ksanti said:
I don't understand all this hulluballoo about pedos and cameras. I mean honestly. Unless your child is doing something really strange, then nothing is going to be any more sexual than stuff you can find very easily and very legally on the internet and in lifestyle magazines, so why would the supposed paedo go to all the effort?

What about the parents that photograph their own children? I remember a few weeks ago when we had that great hot spell, the police was called in on a local street because his own father was taking photos of his son learning to ride his bike. My god! What has society come to, that even other people have to police others. Or worse, make it their own business.

What happened to people, 20 years ago people were so hardy. Nothing offended them, nothing insulted them. If it did they put those people in their place verbally and were embarrassed in public.
Now so many people are super sensitive and want to sue you for anything. Oh my god he/she has a camera! paedo!

Yet when somebody's in serious need of help or getting their house broken into, you wont see the police for 8+ hours.

An Exception · 12 Jun 2012 at 05:19

^^^
You should watch a movie called 'God Bless America'.. you may loosely be able to relate to it lol