machew
Veteran
No legislation, including The Data Protection Act 1998, prohibits anyone at an Urban Saints Group or holiday from taking photos/videos for personal use.
Anyone means everyone
Photography Child Protection Grumble
- Thread starter Bollo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Anyone means everyone
Profpointy
Legendary Member
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
It's confused left wing pap. I've had this before at school plays and the like.
"It's the law!" is their strident cry.
"Not in this country is ain't" is my typically ungrammatical retort.
The fools have let themselves be unthinkingly swept up in a tide of kaftan wearing hysteria, and most of them really do thing "it's the law", when no such law actually exists.
"It's the law!" is their strident cry.
"Not in this country is ain't" is my typically ungrammatical retort.
The fools have let themselves be unthinkingly swept up in a tide of kaftan wearing hysteria, and most of them really do thing "it's the law", when no such law actually exists.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
I take a slight issue with one part of that. Conflating anything stupid with "left wing pap", is a bit lazy. I consider myself left wing, even in relatively prosperous middle-age, but would never support bollocks on stilts like this.
In the interests of balance, the left wingers saying "tory scum" is equally lazy , when a tory gets his fingers in the till or caught kiddy fiddling - when it's ultimately individual corruption, rather than systemic.
The venue is private land, so the owner or their representatives are perfectly entitled to say "no photos" and that's the end of it - there's no reason required. I believe taking photographs without permission on private land can be treated as trespass in the UK, but that's ultimately a civil matter. There's no explicit legislation about taking pictures of children in a (genuinely) public place as long as the images are not deemed indecent. Whether it's wise to do so is a completely different argument, but it's not a legal one.
My issue is with the use of child protection as a top-trumps card to shut down any argument - if you argue against it, you're probably a pervert, right? The fact that permission was withdrawn on the day and, given NISA's usual high-handed approach to pretty much everything, my pet theory is that they charged the professional photography company a significant licence fee to cover the event with the agreement that they would have the monopoly.
My issue is with the use of child protection as a top-trumps card to shut down any argument - if you argue against it, you're probably a pervert, right? The fact that permission was withdrawn on the day and, given NISA's usual high-handed approach to pretty much everything, my pet theory is that they charged the professional photography company a significant licence fee to cover the event with the agreement that they would have the monopoly.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
When I was working as a professional photographer, during negotiations for covering events this was often brought up.
If the event is free, and open to the public, on public property they have little power. If however it is a closed/private event, then they can do what they like.
Chances are the "official" photographer, won't be charging a cover fee, and will earn his money from sales. The organiser gets photos free for promotions, the photographer sells them to get his money. In my contracts with clients, if there was no cover charge, they must prevent any other photography from happening. It is unfortunately the way the industry is going, as the art of photography is becoming less and less of value to people.
Even at weddings it is starting to become common, with photographers offering discounts for being the sole photographer there.
If the event is free, and open to the public, on public property they have little power. If however it is a closed/private event, then they can do what they like.
Chances are the "official" photographer, won't be charging a cover fee, and will earn his money from sales. The organiser gets photos free for promotions, the photographer sells them to get his money. In my contracts with clients, if there was no cover charge, they must prevent any other photography from happening. It is unfortunately the way the industry is going, as the art of photography is becoming less and less of value to people.
Even at weddings it is starting to become common, with photographers offering discounts for being the sole photographer there.
I understand the issue as a friend of mine is a talented landscape and portrait photographer who did briefly try to make a living as a full time pro, but there just wasn't the market. However, a professional photographer really shouldn't be competing with people with iphones - if their product is strong enough then it should be worth buying for itself, not just because there's no alternative. I agree the lines might blur when someone like me turns up with reasonable kit and a vague idea of how to take pictures, but the professional should still be capable of earning his or her title against at best an enthusiastic amateur like me.
Personally, for these events I'm usually looking for something more interesting than the pro can provide, so I don't really regard my photos as competition. The official photographers usually have to play it safe to make sure they have the required number and type of shots available at the foyer asap. For example, if I know the parents of one of the team members can't make the competition, I'll try and get a few extra individual shots for them. Also, I can take 'story' pictures around the preparation/warmup/off-ice practices etc as the teams know me and so tend to ignore me. A pro covering a large event just doesn't have the time or financial incentive to bother with this kind of thing.
As I said before, I'm happy to respect any rules imposed at a private venue and certainly wouldn't want to hinder someone's ability to make a living, but I do feel NISA's reasoning is disingenuous.
Electric_Andy
Heavy Metal Fan
- Location
- Plymouth
Sounds like in this case "child protection" has become the new "elf and safety". What would you have done if they'd said "sorry but you can't take photos because we want to make money from ours, and are afraid you will give others freebies"? Not much you can do if it's their gaff, but I agree it is fume-worthy when they try and blame it on child protection
There is no law that stops you taking photos of your own kid in any activity. What we have is a bunch of policies and regulations that were created by individual entities. Folks who cite laws and the Privacy related legislation are poorly informed or struggle to convince the merit of their created policies and rules.
But sadly these entities can use these rules as condition for participation. It's either convince them to change or the courts.
But sadly these entities can use these rules as condition for participation. It's either convince them to change or the courts.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Cool your jets Arrow, no one's going to court. The rink is absolutely entitled under civil law to prohibit or restrict the use of photographic or video equipment on their own property, which they've done. It might pish me off, but in the end that's my problem. My gripes are that
- the change in policy was implemented literally at the last minute, and at some inconvenience to me,
- the given reason for the change is most likely bogus and has just been rolled out to stifle any debate.
- the organisation responsible for the change have a track record of arrogance and high-handed behaviour.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Interesting, because it's always the lentil eaters that get their kaftans in a twist and invent imaginary legislation to justify the banning of photos. Not heard of any goose stepping right wingers doing anything like that lately, although that could be because professions such as teaching etc are less likely to attract those politically aligned to the right, so in this case it probably is systemic.
I know this is so wrong, but that's just making me a bit hungry.
Similar threads
