Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Legal aspects - taking photos of children...

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Max_WW
Max_WW  8124 forum posts
23 Jan 2006 - 12:25 PM

I've done a search of the site but surprisingly can't find it discussed elsewhere. If I've missed it please point it out.

What is the legal aspect of taking photos at events where children might appear in the image?

Whilst I hope to avoid stirring hysteria, I realise the potential sensitivity in the current climate and want to avoid a faux-pas.

By way of info, I'm thinking of outdoor sports competitions with regard to own and friends' children, where others might appear in the FOV.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
23 Jan 2006 - 12:25 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

beaniebabe
23 Jan 2006 - 12:29 PM

I'm not sure on the legal side of things, but I take them of my daughters football and all parents have got to of signed a consent form from both teams....child protection

hope that helps a little Smile

Angie x

UserRemoved
23 Jan 2006 - 12:29 PM

It has been discussed many many times Max.

Unfortunately adding graphic banners seems more important than putting a proper search engine on the site Wink

Anyway the brief answer is that you need to consult the child protection policy for the event you are at. Some will say no photography, some will say selected, some will say vetted photographers only, some will go 'you wha?'.
I've been called 6 months after an event to ask that certain photos be removed for legal reasons blah blah blah so issues may become apparent long after the event so its worth keeping an eye out.

We can all discuss it ad infinitum again until we are blue in the face but it really depends on what mechanisms are in place at local level where you are shooting.

tepot
tepot  94416 forum posts United Kingdom
23 Jan 2006 - 12:43 PM


Quote: Unfortunately adding graphic banners seems more important than putting a proper search engine on the site

i agree with you there Joe, the forum search used to be brilliant, it's not nearly so good since the change.

ginz04
ginz04  10276 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
23 Jan 2006 - 12:48 PM

be wary - i wanted to take some pictures of my own kids in swimming pool but was told no because parents might object etc etc.


ian

Bernie
Bernie  102201 forum posts
23 Jan 2006 - 12:51 PM

And I'd have been one of them.
Link

keithh
keithh  1022781 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
23 Jan 2006 - 12:54 PM

Give over, Bernie...you've got to be at least 60.!!
Wink

Max_WW
Max_WW  8124 forum posts
23 Jan 2006 - 12:56 PM

Bernie, thanks for the link.

Max

twordley
twordley  8360 forum posts England
23 Jan 2006 - 9:38 PM

i cant belive what i just read there!!

a man can photograph his 16 y o wife........

but cant take an 'inappropriate' picture of his son or daughter in a swimming pool unless he blurs his/her facial features and gets consent from every other child and parent whos child is in the pic

there goes the family pics of all on holiday on the beach in swimming trunks and bikinis then

in fact lets just ban ALL pics of children!!

I KNOW TO STOP ANY PERSON MIS-USING OR MIS-INTERPRETING ANY IMAGE ........LETS JUST BLANKET BAN PHOTOGRAPHS FULL STOP.......THERE END OF PROBLEM!!


no wonder this country is in a state

raziel_uk
raziel_uk  104929 forum posts
23 Jan 2006 - 11:48 PM


Quote: but cant take an 'inappropriate' picture of his son or daughter in a swimming pool unless he blurs his/her facial features and gets consent from every other child and parent whos child is in the pic

But what do you mean by "inappropriate"? Why would anyone want to take an inappropriate photo of their child?

Ashley

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
23 Jan 2006 - 11:57 PM

Ah, but this is the problem. Who defines 'inappropriate'?

elowes
elowes  102832 forum posts United Kingdom
23 Jan 2006 - 11:57 PM

Bernie's link provides enough information for any reasonable persons to understand the law. I made comment on another thread about 16 year old models without realising the age of a child had been raised to 18.

When a person can legally indulge in exual activity and get married at 16 I think that was a bit of a stupid law where the age was concerned. But there you are. We vote in the numpties who employ the civil servants who draft the laws.

raziel_uk
raziel_uk  104929 forum posts
24 Jan 2006 - 12:00 AM

I realise that, but I was just wondering why twordley was so annoyed about people specifically not being able to take 'inappropriate' (dictionary.com's definition of inappropriate is "Unsuitable or improper") shots of their children.

Ashley

raziel_uk
raziel_uk  104929 forum posts
24 Jan 2006 - 12:03 AM

Have you noticed in news programmes that if they are talking about schools or teaching in general then they show at least one shot of children faces; but when it's anything to do with sex, etc., only their legs are shown?

Ashley

Bernie
Bernie  102201 forum posts
24 Jan 2006 - 12:10 AM


Quote: Give over, Bernie...you've got to be at least 60.!!
Wink

I'm just waiting for my age to catch up with my grumpy old man mentality. Smile

OK my kids are all in there early 20's now bar one(13)but photographing at a swimming pool is bound to raise a few eyelids.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.