Photography of children.

Energize said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's certainly at least partly true.

Ignoring the whole private land thing for a moment, working in a school, aside from kids we don't have parent's permission to use in a public domain (school website, newsletters and so on), we're blanket banned from using photos of fostered children on the website, irrespective of parental consent.

If said children are well out of focus out in the background or are primarily obscured with no distinguishing features visible, then it's OK (though being a small school, I can normally check with the affected parents for their consent for certain photos or videos), but generally it's a no-no.

I'm not sure if this is a county policy or a national one, and whether it affects others outside of areas such as education though.

Of course, as it's private land, what others have said is of primary importance - the owners can flat out refuse before you even get to which kids can be identified.

It's a shame, as in a school it renders a lot of group shots unusable for the web (the exact sort of shots you want to use), or sending photos to another school if you've been on a shared project, and you know that these children will have their photos splashed all over social networking sites by their peers anyway.

It's odd how it comes around though. These rules have been in place for at 5 or 6 years now (while I've been in charge of the school website and school media), and while I've worked at this school for over a decade, up until a couple of years ago we hadn't had a child who's photo couldn't be used. Now, out of a school of 100, we have half a dozen.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

It's called paranoia.
Camera= Paedophile.
When school sports days are enforced no-photo zones, and parents cannot even take a snap of their own child(ren), then that's really quite sad.

Not many paedophiles would have the front to turn up at a school and start snapping- any that do deserve to get caught and 'fall down the stairs' a couple of times on their way to prison, but to tar every adult with the paedo brush just for taking a photo is truly ridiculous. But nevertheless that seems to be the way things have gone...
 
AHarvey said:
You don't need a CRB check for taking photos of kids either.
Click to expand...

Well you learn something new every day, all portrait photographers who go into schools, all people associated with care of and foster care of children, teachers, youth workers etc etc etc must have been mislead.

Although CRB does not prove anything, it is a requirement for taking photos of children that are not your own, and a requirement for taking photos of children without parental consent. Totally bureaucratic I agree, but it was asked and this is what you need.

However, feel free to take photos of whatever you like, it will only come into play if someone complains to authorities, police etc.
 
ARD said:
Well you learn something new every day, all portrait photographers who go into schools, all people associated with care of and foster care of children, teachers, youth workers etc etc etc must have been mislead.

Although CRB does not prove anything, it is a requirement for taking photos of children that are not your own, and a requirement for taking photos of children without parental consent. Totally bureaucratic I agree, but it was asked and this is what you need.

However, feel free to take photos of whatever you like, it will only come into play if someone complains to authorities, police etc.
Click to expand...

School policy and the law are two very different things.
 
Indeed. You don't need a CRB check to work with children. You need a CRB check to work with children unsupervised or for any significant length of time (eg a full-time job with regular access to children, or supervising a youth club).
 
dougal1331 said:
It's called paranoia.
Camera= Paedophile.
When school sports days are enforced no-photo zones, and parents cannot even take a snap of their own child(ren), then that's really quite sad.

Not many paedophiles would have the front to turn up at a school and start snapping- any that do deserve to get caught and 'fall down the stairs' a couple of times on their way to prison, but to tar every adult with the paedo brush just for taking a photo is truly ridiculous. But nevertheless that seems to be the way things have gone...
Click to expand...

I can't get over how unreal it has become. I remember in the late 80's when I was in school plays, parent's everywhere, aunties and uncles, older brothers and sisters in the audience with video/photo camera's and just as you said, school sports day. It was such great times back then when everyone got together. Half a week later most of us watched the tapes in school.
 
If you're photographing kids, you need permission from the parents/guardians, it is simple as that.

The main reason is protection, there's been numerous occasions where someone has taken a picture, it's appeared in a paper and an estranged parent has tracked down the kid.

Quite serious business, no matter if you don't "care" about it.
 
rexehuk said:
If you're photographing kids, you need permission from the parents/guardians, it is simple as that.
Click to expand...

That's not what the law says, with good reason. No one would ever be able to take a photograph in public if you needed permission from everyone who happened to be in the frame. In this case it's a sports facility open to the public, people are going to be taking pictures, it's unavoidable.
 
Last edited:
rexehuk said:
If you're photographing kids, you need permission from the parents/guardians, it is simple as that.

The main reason is protection, there's been numerous occasions where someone has taken a picture, it's appeared in a paper and an estranged parent has tracked down the kid.

Quite serious business, no matter if you don't "care" about it.
Click to expand...

1. Dont think that is true, if so, please quote the law/statue which states so. In a PUBLIC area, you can take photos as you please.

2. What about a live television broadcast (news etc), and a child happens to be in the background and an "estranged parent" has tracked down the kid. The "protection" angle has been overused and quoted verbatim.

The example of decreased photography at school plays/events etc is a good example of the "loss" for the children. Less memories of happier carefree times when they grow up.

It is quite serious business, freedom. "Think of the children" is overused to slowly erode our liberties.
 
as long as the photos of the children are not indecent then there is nothing illegal of taking photos of any children in a public place, including those that are not your own without permission from the parent. how would you know which children in a public place are under a protection order anyway? what happens if the biological parent saw an image that had the child in the background of any shot?

and no you do not need a CRB unless you are being left in soul care of a vunderable person (child, elderly, disabled etc). whether an employer wants you to have a CRB is another matter though. you could not get a CRB also last time i checked if you were self employed and even then a photographer did not qualify as a profession requiring a check.

that said, as above its private property and the owner can ask you what they like.
 
Public places are fine... OP was on private land and owner has final say.

I deal with this daily... but hey I'm leaving the thread now ^^.
 
ARD said:
Well you learn something new every day, all portrait photographers who go into schools, all people associated with care of and foster care of children, teachers, youth workers etc etc etc must have been mislead.

Although CRB does not prove anything, it is a requirement for taking photos of children that are not your own, and a requirement for taking photos of children without parental consent. Totally bureaucratic I agree, but it was asked and this is what you need.

However, feel free to take photos of whatever you like, it will only come into play if someone complains to authorities, police etc.
Click to expand...

As pointed out, checks are required for those who have regular and unsupervised access to children and young people.

taken from: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/schools/for-schools/safeguarding-children

As a photographer you'll never have unsupervised access to children, there will always be a teacher or school employee there. There was a link to a detailed post on talkphotography about this very thing but I can't find it now.

Your first post is quite accurate though that people have been misled, and a school can request a CRB check be done but its not a legal requirement.

EDIT: on a side note, if you ever get accused of being a peado with a camera, just tell the parent "no offence, but your kids ugly, who'd want a photo of that?" :p
 
not sure about a private riding school (as your on their land) but I know at school sports events they cannot stop you from taking pictures of your own children for private use.

Publishing pictures online is where it gets trickier, an online photo album with private links or members only I.e. only to be viewed by friends and family is fine, however you can get asked to take apicture down if it's on a public forum/ space.

Lastly regarding the Seperated parents/ children in care bit - This is the Key, they cannot have their pictures taken if they are effectively wards of the state without the states permission (care worker/foster parents etc) as they are protected.

Schools etc normally set a general rule that if you object to your child being pictued at events you ahve to say, or flip it round to a consent form that pictures will be taken and used X,Y,Z but most do this outside the Law which does stipulate you can take pictures of your child at these events - This was upheld in court recently
 
Quite agree Neil, quite a few urban myths and misunderstandings.

One of the most useful guides to Photography and the Law can be found at

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

Another good guide is at Urban75

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

Then there is the Editorial Photographers UK site

http://www.epuk.org/Resources/958/police-photographers-and-the-law

The UK Copywrite service

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

The Met Police website

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
 
I'm getting a few photos from a local festival which will have face painting and kids there, so I need a consent form, obviously not too long that their parents wont stand there and read it, what needs to go in a consent form for their photos to go on to my website for my portfolio?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom