Why do schools really stop parents taking photographs of their children? - Guardian UK article

[AmPhot]

Thought this article might interest some, especially parents with kids in school. I think this is the extreme end of the scale, but I have read of instances of schools in Australia also trying to limit or ban photography of kids during school activities. Anyone had similar experiences with schools ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban

[etherial]

Interesting article, I haven't experienced this at school just yet, but certainly have in dog sports. Our controlling body in Victoria says:


Photographers
When taking photos at DOGS Victoria events which may include children handling dogs or being in attendance at an event photographers are to ensure that they have written permission from a parent or guardian to publish said photograph of a child on any website and/or Facebook.


This makes it very hard to cover an event where adults and children compete equally, and the way they word it about "may include" and "attendance at the event" means that it is just about impossible to cover the event fully. The alternative is that I search the place on the day for any children to get written consent, or when I process the photos, I have to make a determination if any person in the photograph (including in the background) is a child and therefore not publish it. None of this helps to protect children from having their photo taken and the photo being used for unsavoury purposes.

It is very frustrating to say the least.

[fess67]

It is madness. As the first article says, there is a presumption that something sinister is going on if a person has a camera - especially if it has a large zoom lens - and there are children around. I am not sure how we came to be this way as a society but it is a sad reflection of how many people think in the modern world.

[etherial]

... has a camera - especially if it has a large zoom lens ...

Yes, one of the big pitfalls of having white lenses! :(

[FallingHorse]

Thankfully this madness hasn't spread to the NT yet. My sons school allows photography at school sports events as does his soccer and rugby clubs. It would be a disappointment to not be able to record these achievements. Although when my husband and son recently visited relatives in NSW they went to watch a cousin (the same age as my son) play rugby and were not allowed any photography. I thought how sad it was that they will not have a record of these events in the future. I really find it offensive that all parents are treated as 'would be predators' at events like this and I get annoyed that they sell it as "protecting children", so for those that disagree with the ban then they must be pedophiles. :angry0:

[arthurking83]

A few years ago, at my kid's school concert, photography by parents was frowned upon, and flash photography was strictly not allowed(apparently!!.. you wouldn't have known it judging by the number of flashes going off in the hall!! :D)
Photos and video albums on CD could be purchased as the school had hired a professional outfit to do both.
From the 5 or 6 sample images I'd seen, they were pretty lame.

The following year, at the same venue, the rule had changed and photography was allowed again!! :confused013
No reason given either.
The lack of any professional photo/video crew was a dead giveaway tho! :rolleyes:

Last years concert was staged at the school grounds just before sunset and at about twilight, so light levels was higher and it was easier to achieve some level of success for the occasion.

So our school went from a blanket ban one year, to encouraging it the next .. and no reasons given.

[Steve Axford]

Perhaps they realised how silly their stance was? I hope all this fades with time and we can go back to normal life without the assumption that all men are latent pedophiles. I remember a woman baring my way into a public toilet (men's) in Alstonville shopping centre. She informed me that there was a little boy in there alone and I could not go in because - I forget her precise reason. I was taken aback, but then just went in. The little boy turned out to be about 10. Surprisingly, I didn't assault him.
What happens when the little boy becomes an adult and has no protection in public toilets? Perhaps public toilets will be banned because of the inherent dangers.

[FallingHorse]

What happens when the little boy becomes an adult and has no protection in public toilets? Perhaps public toilets will be banned because of the inherent dangers.

Oh, by the time he grows up he'll be one of the predators who is barred from entering the public toilets :rolleyes:

[jeffde]

Funny - i did some casual work for the local paper last week - 6 jobs (in 4 hrs btw) Of the 6 jobs 3 were at schools (1 just staff the other 2 school children) - all were requested by the school - and 1 a child care centre... (staff and kids)

[achee]

I'm glad things in Australia haven't gotten as bad as in the UK yet!

[Lance B]

It's happening in many places and at many school and other functions, ie fear factors as we all become overly precious. It's as much to do with raising funds as much as it is to do with the so-called "protection of children", which is just a cop out which allows them to raise these funds, in otherwords perpetuate the "fear factor" in order to propogate the ability to charge people to be able to get photos of their own kids. It happens with many things in life nowadays, create a fear and then create an industry to stamp it out and to monitor it and thus keep people in jobs, all self perpetuating.

The thing I find quite amusing in all this nanny state mentality of the so-called protection of our children is these scenarios, let's take a situation which we have all heard and/or read about; a person is innocently taking photos of a place/function/whatever and there are kids in the background or whatever. Some hot headed parent, hell bent on voicing their "rights" (aren't you sick of hearing that little gem), confronts the innocent photographer and demands why they are taking photos of children (we had someone on this forum have the same thing happen if I do remember correctly). They demand that the said photographer delete the image or they will call the police, so the innocent photographer meekly deletes the photo to avoid a scene. Things which we all used to photograph many years ago without even thinking or even noticing anyone in the background.

However, let's take another look at it. Let's say Justin Bieber (or other celeb) shows up at the very same place/function/whatever in our little scenario above, and there are hundreds of journalist pro photogs about busily taking photos, and the very same hot headed parent gets the opportunity to have their kid photographed with said celeb and for it to be emblazoned over all the news netwoks, newspapers and magazines and internet. This very same hot headed parent is falling all over himself/herself to get her kid in that photo and be more than happy to have their photo all over the media for any child molester to paw over. Hmmm.

Or, same scenario, the pro photogs do not take a photo of their kid and said celeb, and the parent doesn't have a camera with them, but desperately wants to show off/brag/boast to his/her friends and family that their precious little dear met said celeb. However, the poor photographer, who he/she just berated for taking an innocent photo, now wants the innocent photographer to please get a shot of his/her kid with the celeb as they do not have their camera. Now it's ok!! Hmm.

Really, I think we are all getting a little too precious and cotton woolled and the linked to article just backs that up.

[Kym]

Cant take pics but ...
that parents could buy a DVD for £12.
Hmmm I know why, and its nothing to do with child protection.

[Lance B]

Cant take pics but ...
Hmmm I know why, and its nothing to do with child protection.

Yep, it's exactly what I was saying in my post.

The thing that worries me is that this is just the thin egde of the wedge. How long before we are being charged to take photos of any significant landmark or event and it is already happening in many parts of the world and here in Sydney.

[ving]

as per the last 2 posts.... cant take pics but you can buy them... its about money making?

[crazymorton]

It is madness. As the first article says, there is a presumption that something sinister is going on if a person has a camera - especially if it has a large zoom lens - and there are children around. I am not sure how we came to be this way as a society but it is a sad reflection of how many people think in the modern world.

you said it all!

[norwest]

I have several teachers in the family working in the public system in different regions, including a wife and son. I also do photographic work for a number of schools. Very few schools I'm aware of gain financial benefit from not allowing cameras on a school ground. On many occasions I've had particular children pointed out to me as those whom cannot under any circumstances be included in any shot, including team sports shots, which is obviously difficult.

The reason being is the children can be traced through their connection to a school if seen in a photograph and have been under one or another of types of protection orders from individuals because of past violence, abuse or any number of things.
Protocol (and common sense) demands the names of any children in these circumstances are kept in house.

In any school, don't take it for granted you know why they aren't allowing photographs.

[kiwi]

I agree there is an issue re child protection and you're actually breaking the law if you take pics of those children and publish them, they are afforded court ordered privacy

Anyhow. I think things are swinging back to normality. I think in the main caused by the iPhone and Facebook prevalence desensitizing us again to kids pics online