Stopped from photographing MY child at an event

Hi
I first want to be clear about one thing before the point become contentious and people put words in my mouth…. This is a subject about me taking family, private only photos of my child at an event they are entered into. No other children will be in the photo and I will not use it for any financial gain or to publish and present publicly. It is purely a family record for our own family nostalgia.
Right…. I think I’ve been clear 🙂 my question is…..
If my daughter has entered into an event for a club she is already in, which we pay for and have had to pay for this event as well, does the organiser have the right to force us to use a 3rd party photographer that they have engaged with (obviously they are splitting the profits) and we have to pay for each shot for? Technically they are using my child’s image for financial gain of a 3rd party.

8 pages, one deliberate troll, one OP regretting trying to have a debate and garner thoughts.

Can they actually stop you from taking a photo?

I can understand telling people not to, to avoid safeguarding issues with other children, but if that’s not the reason they’re saying no photos, I’d just take some anyway.

I can see this will happen but thought I’d ask 🙂

I’d assume it depends on the location and the event T&C’s?

e.g if it’s a public location then they can’t stop you from taking photos. But they can stop you from participating in the event.

@ads678 I did assume it was to protect privacy of other children but random other kids are in the professional shots anyways so it’s purely financial reasons for them.

I’m not sure about the rules and regs but I’ll bet your kid would rather you didn’t make a scene😂😀🤷‍♂️

Conversely they cannot take pictures of your child without your implicit consent (never mind also using them for their own commercial purposes).

@TheDTs there will be no scene. I will quietly vent my displeasure on a public Internet forum and begrudgingly cough up the cash for second rate photos with other people kids photobombing in the background. Grumble grumble. 😒

Technically they are using my child’s image for financial gain of a 3rd party.

yes but only if you buy the photos.

The most they can do is ask, i doubt very much they could enforce a no photo policy.

It could also be a way to stop the parents who spend the whole event holding their phone up and filming, which is great when you’re sitting directly behind them…

does the organiser have the right to force us to use a 3rd party photographer

What do the T&Cs say in that regard? If nothing, then crack on.

Can they actually stop you from taking a photo?

Yes. It could be part cash and part private. I was the safeguarding officer for our local cricket club. There are strict conditions for clubs and events allow people to take pictures of kids are allowed.

Snap, I was also welfare officer at my cricket club and it’s a complex area. Technically you can’t be stopped from taking photos (including other people’s kids) at a public event, but if asked not to – and you don’t / can’t know the back story behind why some may be extremely wary of being in photos – then it would be the KIND thing to do to comply with that request.

But is an organised event, such as at a cricket coaching session or match, a public event? We argued not, that it was on a private ground, posted signs requesting no photos, etc. And reminded some parents who in general were OK with it. A few of course were just dicks, but that is just people.

It gets more complex if the images are subsequently used or published. NSPCC guidance is quite helpful.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/briefings/photography-sharing-images-guidance#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20law%20against,people’s%20children%20on%20social%20media.

TL;DR – yes, they may be well within their rights to prevent you and ask you to leave if it is a private event.

The club can be penalised to for allowing them or the visiting club for not obeying to the rules. Can’t say I had any issues it was always made clear at the start of a game if it allowed or not.

I would have thought it would be very much about context.

A ballet show indoors with lots of kids on the stage – No
A cross country race with your kid running through the public woods – Fine

cough up the cash for second rate photos with other people kids photobombing in the background. Grumble grumble

Although statements like this may be the reason they are banning you.

Grumble Verb; to have a quick grumble, meaning to have a quick ****. Grumbling is often done hunched over the keyboard, or for the serious old schooler, with a grumble-mag.

Are you on any sort of a list?

You have to ask why a small cricket club needs a “safeguarding officer”. The word dystopian is used to often, maybe the word pathetic is more useful. It has a lot to do with people in this country and their own sense of self importance.

I work as a television cameraman and every day i have some busybody claiming to have some role offering me advice about where i can point my camera in public. Last week i was physically assaulted by a NHS manager who objected to me filming the entrance of their hospital from a public street. They made it clear that they were the information officer, and what i was doing was against the law. I was breaking patient confidentiality and GDPR!

When you film general street scenes in any city in the UK, you’ll time and time again have people come over and ask you if you mind not including pictures of their children in general wide shots. Why? What on earth do they think is going to happen with the pictures?

There is no law. If i want to film school children from a street, through a fence, from a public road, then i can do as i please.

GDPR must be the most misunderstood and misquoted regulation in the world. Whenever anyone mentions it, i feel an overwhelming desire to burst into laughter. It is more or less used as a catch all busy body’s machiavellian charter.

Ask yourself a question? What exactly is a pedophile going to do with photos of a child wearing clothes, at a sports event? Why is this a safeguarding issue?

It’s a load of nonsense. Take whatever pictures you want of your own children at public events. Just smile and do as you please.

@joe it’s not always about paedos.

There are sometimes very good reasons why people don’t want themselves or their kids photographed or filmed, especially at an easily identifiable location where they may be found.

Granted, this isn’t always the case but it doesn’t hurt to consider the reasons people may have for keeping their whereabouts private.

@OP I’d say in the clubs case it’s their show and their rules. I’m also not sure why you think the club making money from an event is a bad thing.

@joe

You have to ask why a small cricket club needs a “safeguarding officer”. The word dystopian is used to often, maybe the word pathetic is more useful. It has a lot to do with people in this country and their own sense of self importance.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jun/18/perpetrators-of-child-sexual-abuse-use-sport-as-cover-inquiry-finds

I’d have thought a TV cameraman of all people would’ve paid attention to the news of late!

Become utterly fantastic with an etch-a-sketch and draw your child on the fly. Be careful not to shake it and then take a photo of your etch-a-sketched offspring.

@funkmasterp sorry mate. That’s against GDPR. You’re almost going to get someone coming over to tell you that you don’t have the right “permission” to do that.

@joe

there are other instances where people may not want to be filmed or identified, it’s not just anti-paedo.

Not sure who / where your anger is directed though. In my case our cricket club had over 250 junior members and there were children in those numbers that certainly came in the ‘other’ category. Without someone willing to do all the paperwork and admin the club would not have been able to offer cricket to all those kids. I don’t think what me and the junior section age group admins did had anything to do with self-importance?

I had to deal with one vaguely nasty situation in that time, resulting in a person being excluded from the ground during junior sessions for their and the kids’ benefit. We also had one instance while I was W.O with a parent helper and an honest misunderstanding over transport to and back from an away game. In both cases the immediate ability to fall back on policies and the support of the County welfare officer was of huge help in avoiding what could have been quite distressing for all (innocent) parties.

It’s a load of nonsense. Take whatever pictures you want of your own children at public events. Just smile and do as you please.

Above that, be sensitive to others and rule 1. Is it a public event though?

I know the law on this very well as I am a reasonably accomplished photographer who sometimes exhibits work in galleries and events around the world and people are my main focus. You can’t be a portrait photographer these days without knowing the law!

First off let’s get something very clear. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent you from photographing anyone in a public place irrespective of the subject’s age. Additionally you can then do anything you want with that image except use it to sell a product or promote an ideology. No one has a right to privacy in a public space period. No exceptions.

If you are in a place where that subject has a reasonable right to privacy, for example their home, then whatever image you end up with is bound by their permission to use in any public context. The making of the image is itself against the law if done without consent. Publishing it is another breach of law.

If you are in a privately owned space then the owners of that space set the rules. They can say what you can and cannot do. So if the event you are attending with your child is in say a privately owned hall then the owners are allowed to prevent you from photographing anyone, including your own child.

They do however then need your consent to photograph your child and you can then refuse that right if you wish.

But if you want a picture from that event held in a privately owned space then the event organisers, with the agreement of the space owners, can ostensibly force you to use their photographer.

Hope that helps.

between writing my post and hitting send, I see some others have added. Particularly the link in johnnystorm’s post. At the training I did, the county WO admitted that cricket was a known target – eg: particularly for junior players in senior teams where players need to go in and out of changing rooms to ‘pad up’ it would be possible to manufacture a situation where you could be alone in a changing room with a child, games lasting several hours, and so on. Far more opportunity than a game where all arrive at the same time, play a game at the same time, and then leave after.

She also said that sound policies being visibly enacted went a long way to make people with ill intent decide they were at risk of being caught here and go elsewhere, as they are almost always cowards. Sounds a bit NIMBY – dissuade them and make them someone else’s problem instead, but that’s the reality.

It’s a common Safeguarding thing in every sport which has an affiliation with a national body.

In theory the official photographer has had their safeguarding checks and will not use the images inappropriately where as not every parent or random who turns up has been checked, so it’s just easier to say no to all others pics.

Don’t let your kid participate in the organised event if it offends you so much ?

First off let’s get something very clear. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent you from photographing anyone in a public place irrespective of the subject’s age. Additionally you can then do anything you want with that image except use it to sell a product or promote an ideology. No one has a right to privacy in a public space period. No exceptions.

That all being said, if someone asked you, in a reasonable manner, to please not publish pictures of themselves or their children what would your response be?

That all being said, if someone asked you, in a reasonable manner, to please not publish pictures of themselves or their children what would your response be?

That would depend on a lot of factors. In general I respect their request (and this has happened a few times including one just recently) because a) who needs the hassle and b) don’t be a dick.

I don’t take candids anyway so this doesn’t often come up as a problem; all my work is arranged and agreed with consent up front. If someone doesn’t want to allow me to publish I typically don’t engage with them in the first place; the right to publish is something I make clear from the outset. Sometimes people try to withdraw that after the event and as I say, I’m most cases I agree to take the image down, but in one or two I have declined to do that, partly because the image was already ‘out there’ and featured in other online or printed publications, in other instances.

It’s a fine line. I’m not Bruce Gilden but then neither am I going to be cowed by vexatious requests.

judetheobscure covered the legal aspect well. So I won’t repeat that.

There is the moral aspect.

Wife works in a school and they have children and parents who have had to move due to domestic violence. In a lot of cases the perpetrator of the violence won’t know which new school the child is going to. But with modern social media (I sound old saying that) it’s not a great leap to find friends of friends of friends who have taken a photo of a number of kids at a school concert, including the perpetrators child, so they now know which school they’re at.

I appreciate it’s a bit of a leap but the school have to show they’ve taken reasonable precautions. You could say that children with safeguarding issues shouldn’t be in the concerts, plays or sports days; but it seems unreasonable to punish them for something awful that happened to them previously a d was completely beyond their control.

The schools our kids go to have a sensible approach of allowing photos but ask that you only take pics of your own children. Seems to work fairly well.

So basically rule 1.

You have to ask why a small cricket club needs a “safeguarding officer”.

Child protection, adult protection, anti-bullying, equality, use of images, GDPR and many other things.

Yes you can stand on private ground and take photos but if you’re on someone premises they have the right to monitor who does.

I’m not sure what relevance your story of supposedly being assaulted by NHS boss has to do with child protection though.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/woman-pepper-sprayed-man-taking-photos-of-his-own-children-in-arlington-police/3025952/

Carful now

That would depend on a lot of factors. In general I respect their request (and this has happened a few times including one just recently) because a) who needs the hassle and b) don’t be a dick.

Sounds fair enough, cheers for answering.

We had a lady at our Club sportive complain today, that there were no paper maps. Apparently her – undisclosed – work demands she can’t use location/GPS.

I guess they don’t all look like Daniel Craig.

@Kryton57. that’s brilliant! I can only presume that she does counter following measures too when out and about….must put miles on to the sportive!

Ah, that must have been what the bag of tin foil squares was for. She had a great disguise as a middle aged housewife* too, but had a revealing and scary steely stare when I said “sorry, no maps”.

*I am jesting, before I get a call from the STW Diversity & Equality police.

Public land = they can’t stop you.
Private/hired land = they can stop you.

There might be something in the terms and conditions of the club about photos and events. If not, you can request they do not photograph your child. But if the kids are old enough to have their own phones, they will likely take photos of each other.

In public, no. Private , up to the organisers etc as above. Tricky bit is where a place has been booked as such may be private for the event but is generally seen as public. Lets say a sports pitch.
Safegaurding may well be a concern. I teach a couple of kids who are not allowed to be photographed for the reasons above. Seperated parents with history of abuse so said kids must never appear on school or other websites. Thus in places/situations where parenst want to take pics EG concerts these kids have to be removed or hidden behind taller kids. The event organiser may have been asked for this to happen but if a commercial photographer is presnet I doubt it.

I think there’s a mix up here between morally right and legally right. I’m friends with two couples who have adopted abused children. I am not allowed to take photos of them, they’re not allowed to send photos to me. They’re only allowed to meet in private settings with approved people. The children had to change their names to avoid their abusive parents/partners. The rules at some events are perhaps to take account of this and the organisers know who’s pictures can be made public and who’s can’t. The argument that anyone should be able to take pictures anywhere should perhaps use a bit more understanding of different human circumstances?

If safeguarding I guess if all images come from one commercial photographer the photos can be vetted by the organiser to ensure a specific child is not depicted and in focus. In the days of social media and everyone having a pretty good camera in their pocket it must be really hard to keep a lid on the whereabouts of a kid in these sort of situations.

If commercial – tricky. I can see both sides. If you need the cut from the photos to make the event finances work (and the photography needs enough sales to make their proportion of the profits worth their while) I can see how you might want to maximise your chances. Then again, if you are so afraid of the competition from a bunch of mums and dads with iphones you must not have a lot of confidence in your own abilities to find angles and capture expressions and emotions worth paying for.

3rd option (though not knowing the nature of the event I maybe wide of the mark), maybe parents desperate to get that perfect photo have previously been so inconsiderate they have ruined the event, other people’s opportunity to watch the event or plain been a safety hazard (like the daft woman that causes a mass pile up at the tour de france last year).

Off topic slightly…….interesting one at the beach last week. Young girl (about 6-7) at the beach with her grandparents. Grandparents were sat in edge of the dunes near us and the girl went down to the water’s edge about 100m away. Stood totally still transfixed by the water lapping up over her feet. Enter stage right another older couple, the husband of which is a keen local amatuer photographer (posts portraits and landscapes on town’s facebook group all the time). It was like a moth to a lightbulb as he sprung into action. First with a long lens and then, swapping cameras, walking right up to her and taking shots. These were very much photos of the girl, not landscapes with the girl in it. Photographer was not interacting with the girl and she was so transfixed with the water she did not seem to appreciate he was there, even though by this point he was only a handful of metres from her. Meanwhile grandparents next to us getting more and more agitated. Eventually grandma stomps down the beach and has words. Too far away to hear the exact conversation but clearly it was along the lines of “**** off you weirdo” and the photographer was all “nothing in the law against this”. She then moved away from him with the girl. My wife, sat next to me thought it odd and out of order (and creepy)- at the time I was in the he’s a photographer legally being a photographer camp. Now I think I’ve modified that…….whilst he did nothing illegal (I don’t think) and she did make a great subject of a photo so I can see why he was so interested, I’d say he broke rule 1. If a random photographer elected to make me, as a 50 year old bloke, the subject of a protracted up close photoshoot without at least interacting with me I’d probably be pissed off. But a 7 year old with her carers very obviously right there that he could easily have checked in with first – and not just a long lens shot but getting up close on an otherwise empty beach – I think that’s getting into bellend/creepy territory, regardless of legality.

The argument that anyone should be able to take pictures anywhere should perhaps use a bit more understanding of different human circumstances?

It’s less of an argument to that and more that the law is very clear that no one has the right to privacy in a public place. And if you think about it, that’s obviously how it should be since being seen in a public place is no different to being seen in a photograph in a public place.

There are a very small number of people whose pasts make them vulnerable and as such need to try and keep their image out of social media but in those small number of cases (small relative to the population), then it’s easily managed in the situations described above (school settings, sports venues and events etc). Changing the law to include public spaces wouldn’t just be over zealous it would be absurd (since you are by definition in a public space where anyone can see you).

I think that’s getting into bellend/creepy territory, regardless of legality.

That says more about your unconscious biases and prejudices than it does the photographer’s weidness. This is the problem in society currently; there’s an automatic assumption that if you’re photographing children that makes you a weirdo and yet our children are constantly posting (often highly sexualised) images of themselves. It’s one of those ‘through the looking glass’ situations. For the record I don’t do it myself because who needs the hassle of small minded bigots and judgemental idiots but it doesn’t change the underlying problem.

That says more about your unconscious biases and prejudices than it does the photographer’s weidness. This is the problem in society currently; there’s an automatic assumption that if you’re photographing children that makes you a weirdo and yet our children are constantly posting (often highly sexualised) images of themselves. It’s one of those ‘through the looking glass’ situations. For the record I don’t do it myself because who needs the hassle of small minded bigots and judgemental idiots but it doesn’t change the underlying problem.

For the record, if my post did not make it clear (it didn’t) if I was stood alone on a basically empty beach and someone walked 100m over to specifically take photos of me, without talking to me, from 3m away – I’d be thinking of them as a bit of a bellend too. Not just because it’s a child. I’ve had other photographers on the same beach take photos of me close up when surfing (or prepping on the shore) but always there was a bit of interaction and implied approval. This didn’t feel like that. Up close photography in a busy crowded place does not ‘feel’ the same.

Basic being a normal human would prevent you walking across an empty space to get up close and sniff a stranger wouldn’t it? Especially if you were not going to talk to them – just walk up to them and sniff them. Because photography is ‘art’ (sometimes a dubious classification) I’m not convinced it’s a get out of jail free card for acting weird.

Oh, and keen(ish) photographer here too – hence why my first reaction was to defend them.