question

[riggerboy]

question regarding the pics on the home page kids fancydress

i understand that you/we need permission from the parents to take photos of kids in the school play and such like and that we are not supposed to use them for advertising, can anyone tell me if your allowed or not allowed to take photos of the kids at the fancy dress and advertise them on here with/ without the permission of the parents ???

i know its a fun thing but if we need permission then did the powers that be gain the permission of every parent of every child to have the pics on the front page ??????

[_Ju_]

Kids were in a public space. They are not advertising anything. The parents/resposible adult gave them permission to participate. Get a grip

[riggerboy]

Kids were in a public space. They are not advertising anything. The parents/resposible adult gave them permission to participate. Get a grip


get a grip of what ????
i take you know for fact that every parent gave the permission of are you saying that they dont need permission ????

[_Ju_]

it was a PUBLIC event in a PUBLIC space. You do n't need permission, even though the parents DID give permission by alllowing the children to participate. Doh.

[Invisible]

Just think about the 100's of photos that go on the org from the gala and the county show etc. Do you think the photographer(s) ask everyone for permisson? I wouldnt think so

As regards to "advertising" kids on the org, what infact are they advertising? like Ju said they arent advertising anything and are in a public space.

Good point to raise however.

[riggerboy]

i wasnt getting at anybody i was wondering how the law stood that was all

we have some very silly laws and this is one of them


advertising maybe not the right word, but the question still applies

do we/you need the permission to take the pics ??????

is it lawful or unlawful ???? to take them without permission ????

its a couple of simple questions really,

[_Ju_]

Many people assume parental consent must always be obtained when photographing children. But aside from specific provisions in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (especially child protection orders arising from abuse, AVO's or custody proceedings), children are not afforded unique legislative protection when it comes to photographs, consent, privacy or defamation. As with adults you need a signed release for commercial use, but for non-commercial images — nothing.

[riggerboy]

there now thank you very much for that information

now there was no need to tell me get a grip in the first place

it was just information i was looking for not an insult

[_Ju_]

nope. You were stirring, as so many do nowadays.

[joxville]

nope. You were stirring, as so many do nowadays.

Don't you believe in giving people the benefit of doubt? That just maybe riggerboy was making a genuine enquiry??? Personally, I would have responded by saying it's one of those grey areas of law, that because it's a public place with nothing untoward taking place, then it's okay to photograph and publish the pics.

Just my tuppenceworth.

[webmannie]

What about posting pics of children climbing all over my car?

[starry]

Many people assume parental consent must always be obtained when photographing children. But aside from specific provisions in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (especially child protection orders arising from abuse, AVO's or custody proceedings), children are not afforded unique legislative protection when it comes to photographs, consent, privacy or defamation. As with adults you need a signed release for commercial use, but for non-commercial images — nothing.


Am almost scared to ask but could a parent challenge this ?

I am not stirring am just interested, like I think rigger was.
It is a confusing area.
I work within the area you described and wouldn't photograph a child without written permission, nor would I ever photograph them on my personnal camera but have often wondered why different rules apply to different groups.

If possible do you have the legit stuff to back it up, like I say this is something I am interested in reading more about.

[riggerboy]

nope. You were stirring, as so many do nowadays.

well blow me away for trying to find out a simple thing,

maybe it was you that is stirring with your replies,

the next time i want an answer i will
remember to add at the end

no replies from ju.

[riggerboy]

Am almost scared to ask but could a parent challenge this ?

I am not stirring am just interested, like I think rigger was.
It is a confusing area.
I work within the area you described and wouldn't photograph a child without written permission, nor would I ever photograph them on my personnal camera but have often wondered why different rules apply to different groups.

If possible do you have the legit stuff to back it up, like I say this is something I am interested in reading more about.


be careful starry you may be stirring up trouble

infact how very dare you ask such a question

you`ll get hung hung hung hung

[Alice in Blunderland]

you`ll get hung hung hung hung

Okay Im ready where do you want this ??


http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog.com/250px-Knot-hangmans-noose(1).jpg

:lol:

[northener]

I could give you a definitive answer on this Riggerboy.

But, unfortunately, I'm a White Settler and you wouldn't any any help from them....would you?;)

[_Ju_]

Come on. It was a loaded and directed question. You don't even need to understand english to get that. Again: get over it.

As for photos, the only laws that condition your right to photograph are if you are on private property or causing a nuisance, harassing or using an image comercially. If children playing football at the bignold park anyone can photograph them. If they are playing at the highschool then photography will be at the discretion of those incharge (acting in lieu of the owners of the premises- the highschool body).

[starry]

Thanks
Do you have a link that I can use to read more.

I have had this discussion with a work collegue many times it would be good to lay it to rest for once and for all.
He won't however accept " I read it on caithness org as legal proof tho :lol:

I have googled but as usual it is a mass of one saying it is fine to photograph and another saying you need parental permission.

Am happy to take answers from anyone, even Northerner with his white settler keyboard ;)

(Joke Northerner, I have no idea where you are from :))

[riggerboy]

I could give you a definitive answer on this Riggerboy.

But, unfortunately, I'm a White Settler and you wouldn't any any help from them....would you?;)


well go on then for once i will take the word of a white settler given your user name lol

[riggerboy]

Okay Im ready where do you want this ??


http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog.com/250px-Knot-hangmans-noose(1).jpg

:lol:


oh kinky i`ve come over all funny lol
lets head to the barn

[cazmanian_minx]

This is a comprehensive recent article, written post G20 summit. Not particularly a fan of Urban75, but they've got their facts straight:

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

[riggerboy]

This is a comprehensive recent article, written post G20 summit. Not particularly a fan of Urban75, but they've got their facts straight:

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

thank you very much for the link, very interesting,

[starry]

Thanks Caz that is really useful.

[percy toboggan]

well blow me away for trying to find out a simple thing,

maybe it was you that is stirring with your replies,
the next time i want an answer i will
remember to add at the end

no replies from ju.

What a devilishly simple weeze Riggerboy!
Why didn't I think of that.:confused

How strangely intolerant are the tolerant and the pleaders for 'moderation'
'Get a grip' seems an unfair reaction to an honestly asked question.

Rather than face a Ju-nami of opprobrium in future I may well opt for your suggested suffix.

Not that he'll take much notice [lol]