Help photos without consent

[Zamzara]

I am sure that the other club's website owners will remove the photo if they are asked nicely.

 

The real issue I had with the OP was insisting that the photos must be destroyed. That is not a reasonable request, seeing as they were taken by another player's wife and not even in any official capacity.

 

There is no logical reason why allowing spectators to take photographs is any worse for the children playing than allowing spectators to attend at all.

[graciefaye]

Then the foster parent should report the situation to the children's Social Worker. I to am a secretary for a local club so understand where your coming from but the children's information is on a 'need to know basis', I'm mearly suggesting did you really need to know, not your fault at all-I don't expect a reply as it is removing the question you posted from your child.

[wobbles]

The website adminstrator is the person who took the photos.

 

I know for a fact she will not remove the photos even if she is asking nicely, she thinks she is above everyone else, and i know she will get a bee in her bonnet about it

[dx100uk]

sorry but this threads has become ridiculous and should be closed and removed.

 

its turned from a simple enq, into, well i knew there was a vunerable child in some of the photos, but i did not what to use this as a lever to get my own way. other persons situations are being discussed outside of their permission.

 

moderators i think it should be buried now.

 

PC nation gone mad:confused:

 

dx100uk

[StormWarrior]

I think it's been well established that the taking of pictures at a public event is well within the law, and I'm sure that the original posters worries for the at risk child are well intentioned.

 

BUT, what is the chances of the natural parents actually seeing the pics on this photography site, and being able to act on them?

 

It would be quite unusual for a child at that much risk to be still in the area of 'danger'. Especially in the case where abduction is thought to be a real possibility. Moreso if the foster parents have moved 3 times in 2 years( which is unusual in itself, the child is normally moved )

 

I can't help wondering if the OP objections and hopes are more to do with the talent show! And IF he becomes famous the pictures could be sold.

[dx100uk]

ticked the box there!

 

dx100uk

[Mike220359]

PC nation gone mad:confused:

 

dx100uk

 

Totally agree mate

[barracad]

I know for a fact she will not remove the photos even if she is asking nicely, she thinks she is above everyone else, and i know she will get a bee in her bonnet about it

 

With respect, why ask for advice on what to do if you aren't even going to bother to ask for the pictures to be removed? This would be the obvious place to start.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer in almost every circumstance. The most common exceptions are:

 

- where the photographer is employed as such, and the contract of employment specifically gives the employer copyright

- where the copyright is assigned to someone else, usually upon payment or as part of a commission

 

There is no law preventing someone taking photographs in a public place, or even at a school. LEAs don't have to get permission or clearance - they do it because they don't know the law and think it'll cover their backsides.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Correct Scarlet. The only thing they could do would be to ask that person to leave the schools property. If they continued to take photo's from a public place outside the school property the police could be called & they would/could arrest that person as being a risk to public order.

 

However an at risk child being photographed IS a different matter. If Social Services are the childs guardian then they can insist the photo's be removed from a public website. If their request is refused & whilst there is no criminal offence they could apply for a civil injuction (& would almost certainly get it) to have it removed with the costs probably being awarded against the website owner

[monkey_uk]

Correct Scarlet. The only thing they could do would be to ask that person to leave the schools property. If they continued to take photo's from a public place outside the school property the police could be called & they would/could arrest that person as being a risk to public order.

 

So, noone can take photos anywhere anymore then? Taking photos is a Public Order offence? rofl! What tripe!

 

However an at risk child being photographed IS a different matter. If Social Services are the childs guardian then they can insist the photo's be removed from a public website. If their request is refused & whilst there is no criminal offence they could apply for a civil injuction (& would almost certainly get it) to have it removed with the costs probably being awarded against the website owner

 

 

They can insist can they? What legistlation are you reading this from? I'd be interested in seeing it, if you can produce it...

 

It is long held that taking photographs in public places is not illegal, I was looking at a whole website set up about this issue a while ago, but I forget the name and url of it right now. It is also legal to take photographs on private property that is usually open to the public (prime example being a supermarket), although I'm not quite 100% sure on the 2nd point.

[monkey_uk]

Oh, and like barracad says, quite rightly, unless you're going to ask the publisher to remove them, then there's not a lot we can do here to help you.

[monkey_uk]

Ah, found one source - this is a VERY interesting read...

 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

[ScarletPimpernel]

So, noone can take photos anywhere anymore then? Taking photos is a Public Order offence? rofl! What tripe!

 

No-one has said this. However, the article you helpfully referenced shows some occasions when it can cause problems. It's certainly an issue with which many police officers are not familiar - I watched a photographer being hassled by armed police in London because he was taking pictures in the street near some embassies - he'd done nothing wrong but they were certainly talking about public order offences.

[gizmo111]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny the Penuriosus

However an at risk child being photographed IS a different matter. If Social Services are the childs guardian then they can insist the photo's be removed from a public website. If their request is refused & whilst there is no criminal offence they could apply for a civil injuction (& would almost certainly get it) to have it removed with the costs probably being awarded against the website owner

 

 

They can insist can they? What legistlation are you reading this from? I'd be interested in seeing it, if you can produce it...

 

Children Act 1989 - overriding principle - the welfare of the child is paramount - the child in question as I understand it is at risk of harm if her parents discover her wherabouts.

 

But as has been said on many times a simple request for the photos to be removed by the OP would be the starting point.

[jampot]

It doesn't really sound, to be fair, like the OP is that concerned about the "at risk child" - more the fact that it could be used as an angle to get the photographer / website to remove ALL pictures of the match from the public domain.

 

Presumably it is down to the photographer what they do with these images - I'm sure they would appear very churlish if they refused to take them down with a valid reason, even if that reason was "I don't want photographs of my child on the internet." But reading between the lines, it all does sound a little "precious" and the OP doesn't want anyone but them (or their agent) owning ANY images rights to their son.

 

Judging from what I see on TV, some programmes go out of their way to get ANYONE shown in their clips to sign disclaimers to enable their images to be shown on TV, eg Trigger Happy TV - and anyone who refuses or can't be traced has their face blurred out.

 

On some of the car forums I contribute to, blanking out someone else's numberplate is also "common decency" if posting a picture of their car, in the interests of preventing cloning etc - but again, it isn't a hard and fast "law", because it is just information which is readily available in the public domain anyway.

 

Seems a whole lot of fuss about nothing, if you ask me. If the photographer DOES refuse to remove them (and you give a valid reason) and you still want to take it further, then progress it with whoever he/she was taking the photographs on behalf of (the club?) - but please make sure you give your true reasons for acting. You can't speak on behalf of the "at risk child", no matter what you say, because frankly that's none of your business.

[jampot]

I meant to add (about disclaimers) - if your son agreed to play in the match, he may have given consent for the photographs to be taken - just as the guardians of the "at risk" child may also have done.

 

I'm sure the club has paperwork that people need to sign before they can turn out onto the field - I would check that you haven't explicitly agreed to photographs being taken before complaining too strongly.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The OP could always ask the photographer to sell her the copyright to images - then she can do what she likes with them.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny the Penuriosus

However an at risk child being photographed IS a different matter. If Social Services are the childs guardian then they can insist the photo's be removed from a public website. If their request is refused & whilst there is no criminal offence they could apply for a civil injuction (& would almost certainly get it) to have it removed with the costs probably being awarded against the website owner

 

 

 

 

Children Act 1989 - overriding principle - the welfare of the child is paramount - the child in question as I understand it is at risk of harm if her parents discover her wherabouts.

 

But as has been said on many times a simple request for the photos to be removed by the OP would be the starting point.

 

Correct Gizmo.

 

As for being tripe it shows the poster who made that comment lacks knowledge. The police can make a demand that you move on or cease what your doing even if it's normaly lawful behaviour & if you refuse they can arrest you for a public order offence. In fact all offences are now arrestable offences.

 

To refuse the instructions of a police officer is an arrestable offence although they will have to justify it when they get you to the nick.

 

"I instructed this person to move on or cease what they were doing & they refused so I arrested them gov"

[monkey_uk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny the Penuriosus

However an at risk child being photographed IS a different matter. If Social Services are the childs guardian then they can insist the photo's be removed from a public website. If their request is refused & whilst there is no criminal offence they could apply for a civil injuction (& would almost certainly get it) to have it removed with the costs probably being awarded against the website owner

 

 

 

 

Children Act 1989 - overriding principle - the welfare of the child is paramount - the child in question as I understand it is at risk of harm if her parents discover her wherabouts.

 

But as has been said on many times a simple request for the photos to be removed by the OP would be the starting point.

 

Cheers gizmo.

[monkey_uk]

Correct Gizmo.

 

As for being tripe it shows the poster who made that comment lacks knowledge. The police can make a demand that you move on or cease what your doing even if it's normaly lawful behaviour & if you refuse they can arrest you for a public order offence. In fact all offences are now arrestable offences.

 

To refuse the instructions of a police officer is an arrestable offence although they will have to justify it when they get you to the nick.

 

"I instructed this person to move on or cease what they were doing & they refused so I arrested them gov"

 

Exactly, justification is needed.

 

I'm stood at a bus stop, if a copper tells me to "move on" I'd ask him why, if he could give no reason, or no valid reason then I'd be staying put. If he decided to lift me for it then so be it. That'd be his problem not mine.

[monkey_uk]

No-one has said this. However, the article you helpfully referenced shows some occasions when it can cause problems. It's certainly an issue with which many police officers are not familiar - I watched a photographer being hassled by armed police in London because he was taking pictures in the street near some embassies - he'd done nothing wrong but they were certainly talking about public order offences.

 

Erm...

 

Correct Scarlet. The only thing they could do would be to ask that person to leave the schools property. If they continued to take photo's from a public place outside the school property the police could be called & they would/could arrest that person as being a risk to public order.

 

Hmm...

[Planner]

This is a very strange one.

 

Last weekend my 15 year old son played in a friendly football match, it was a dads V dads match from 2 junior clubs, my son wanted to play and the referee said he could.

 

now comes the problem.

 

One of the opposition players wifes who is the website adminsitrator for their junior club took photographs of the game without any permission or any consent forms signed. No approach was made to anyone from our club.

 

The other club have now published the photographs on the internet on their club website.

My main concern is that I was not told anyone would be taking photographs and I did not see anyone taking photographs.

My next concern is that my son has an audition for a very famous saturday night tv show next saturday and my son and I both have to sign a disclousure form about recordings and photographs.

 

Does anyone know of any template letter I could send to the club and also to the FA.

 

This is a serious child proection issue.

 

Thanks

 

Dont want to be rude... but could i suggest a hobby? as you obviously have lots of spare time on your hands. Also there are many charitable organisations out there crying out for volunteers. It would be a much better use of your time rather than worrying about none existant "issues".

[powelll]

Sorry but I'm going to stick my oar in as well; I have had a look through the thread and, from the point of view of the child in foster care ( the one who isn't your son ) I can see a valid point.

 

IMHO the fact that you are happy for your son to go on a national TV talent show seems a little bit ad odds with not wanting a snapshot of him at a friendly game appearing on a website that, in all honesty, will probably not even be viewed by that many people.

 

I'm not trying to inflame things or be confrontational but felt compelled to respond...

[StormWarrior]

Just browsing through the latest posts in this topic and had a quick re-read, and a thought came to mind.

The photographer would have no knowledge of the 'at risk' childs status, and prob didn't even notice him, as the OP states (in 2nd post)

appears on some of the photos in the background.

 

If the OP tells the photographer the reasons for wanting the pics removed, she is going to be breaching the child's right worse than the photographer.:o

 

But, I guess if the OP did the sensible thing, advise the foster parents of the situation, then she/he (?) would not be able to get the budding super star off the net!

And I'm gonna hazard a guess here, that the OP would not be satisfied if the 'at-risk' child is just removed from the pics.

 

Sorry If I sound dismissive or inflamatory, but I do not believe that the OP objections really stem from the 'at-risk' childs protection.