Photographs of Children

[DMX Will]

I would like to clear this up, as I have another U18s Club Night coming up, and ideally would like some photos for the web site.

Of course, the problem here is the kids ar under 18 (hence being kids - duh!).

Does anyone know, or can any one link me to some documentation, on what the actual legal side of this is.
- Do I need permission from every child's parents?
- Can I run a disclaimer notice for the kids to see on there way in, and if they don't agree they don't come in?
- What about long distance photos, for example the entire of the dancefloor, where you can't identify them?

Very confusing, and it's making my head hurt. My google searches arn't returning anything from a source I can trusy (Is there a Goverment law web site?)

Thanks everyone!

[spin mobile disco]

Not sure of legals etc but if I use any pics with kids in them I try to either blur faces or take picture of rig from front so backs to camera. If its a private venue I would normally ask person who booked me if its ok to take picturers for publicity purposes. Normaly no problem. Once was asked to put picturers on website from a 16th birthday party by the kids there so they could show it to friends. (hits on website went up by 200 in about 5 hours lol)
If unsure just take pre start pics to show off rig.
Legally im pretty sure owner of camera has all rights to pictures taken , but im sure there are exceptions.

[Danno13]

I'm pretty sure its only kids under 16 that you have to have permission before posting online.

Just try and be creative though and get shillouettes against the lighting and stuff like that. Or you can mask the faces like spin said.. but alot of the time the crowd would like to be able to go and see themselves on a website.. so if there was a way of having some kind of blanket agreement then it would be handy. Although i suspect you'd need signatures from parents.

[BeerFunk]

I couldn't imagine it to be illegal, as newspapers have 'general' photographs with children in it all the time. What I mean by 'general', is a photo of a group of people, including children (like a park or beach). There's no way that they could have the consent of all the parents concerned, but then it's not like the children can be identified.

[GrahamH]

Hi Will

I coach youth football and the following is from the FA and although not a disco i think the same sort of rules apply.

Guidelines for Use of Photographic and Filming Equipment

There is evidence that some people have used sporting events as an opportunity to take inappropriate photographs or film footage of young and disabled people in vulnerable positions. It is advised that all clubs be vigilant with any concerns to be reported to the project coordinator.
If you are commissioning professional photographers or inviting the press to an activity or an event it is important to ensure they are made aware of what is expected of them in terms of child protection.

• Issue photographers with identification that is to be worn at all times

• Always ask for parental permission to take a photograph of, and use an image of a young person. Parents of all participants will have to submit a consent form for the activity but clubs should always check with the Sports Outreach Officer if photo consent was given.

• Athlete’s permission to should also be gained to take or use photographs.

There have been concerns about the risks posed directly and indirectly to children and young people through the use of photos on sports websites. Photographs can be used as a means of identifying children when accompanied by personal information.
Secondly, the content of the photo can be used or adapted for inappropriate use and there is evidence of this adapted material finding its way onto child pornography websites.

• Always avoid the use of the first and surname of individuals in photos. If an athlete is named avoid using their photo.

• Only use images of young people in suitable dress to reduce the risk of inappropriate use.

With regard to actual content it is difficult to express what is inappropriate. However there are certain sports such as swimming, gymnastics and athletics where the potential risk of misuse is greater than for other sports. With these sports the content of the photo should focus on the activity not a particular child and should avoid full face and body shots. So, for example, in a pool photographs would be acceptable if poolside or waist or shoulder up. Age is also something that should be considered and this may affect what is appropriate


Hope this helps

[DMX Will]

Thanks Graham and everyone.

Really I need the law, rather than what a particular oganisation puts in place. If anyone can link me to a goverment web site with the information that would be great.

Thanks,

Will.

[TonyB]

Thanks Graham and everyone.

Really I need the law, rather than what a particular oganisation puts in place. If anyone can link me to a goverment web site with the information that would be great.

Thanks,

Will.

I think you will find that there is no law as such regarding taking pictures of minors. You only fall foul of the law if you take inappropriate pictures and/or use them for inappropriate use. A lot of organisations have voluntary codes of conducts and the Scout Association guidelines are very much the same as those posted by GrahamH.

The main point is that you shouldn't publish any names of minors or any information where they can be identified or located.

If possible you should notify the parents that you are taking photo's and it is up to them to decide if they approve or not. You cannot leave it up to minors to make the decision.

[sleah]

To cover yourself get permission from all the parents of the kids.
The concept of 'general' pictures is, as mentioned, public places such as parks or in the street, a disco is not such a place, even if open to the public.
In this day and age, I'd say it's just not worth chancing it without permission, it would be too easy for someone to try and brand you a perv and without asking permission first it would be tricky to keep your name clean.
Sad fact of modern life, unfortunately.

[DMX Will]

If possible you should notify the parents that you are taking photo's and it is up to them to decide if they approve or not. You cannot leave it up to minors to make the decision.

So do you mean the law says: parental permission must be obtained? or that it's just ideal that parental permission would be given?

[TonyB]

There is no law that says that you do have to get parental permission but there are repercussions if you don't get permission and take pictures of children where a parent complains and questions your motive.

Where children are involved and a complaint is made against you, you are considered guilty until proven innocent. As part of an investigation, it would most likely involve having any computer seized and forensically examined as well as a lengthy questioning at the local nick and possibly accommodation overnight in one of their cells (I know of someone it happened to). The reason why you obtain parental permission first is to cover your own back so they know whats happening and know your motives beforehand.

Even with parents permission, if someone thinks you are taking/have taken inappropriate pictures or used them for an inappropriate use, you can still get into trouble.

[BeerFunk]

I think you're worrying too much, Will. So long as the photos are decent and respectable, and no-one is identified (close ups of faces etc), I dom't see a problem.

You're not gonna get hanged in public or anything! :D

[Penfold42]

Or something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFhoiVV2JwE) :D :D :D :D

I know it's not hanging......:)

[NeilP]

What do the event organisors say? If you ask them and they say it is OK then surely the ball is in their court.

Personally, if the pictures are decent, no names are mentioned then i would have thought it should be acceptable.

[DMX Will]

What do the event organisors say? If you ask them and they say it is OK then surely the ball is in their court.

Personally, if the pictures are decent, no names are mentioned then i would have thought it should be acceptable.

I am the event organiser...

I have teamed up with a colleauge at work, who runs a local Computer company, and between us...we will be bringing "Club Night" to one of the local Clubs every other month. www.egclubnight.co.uk

[NeilP]

Ah!:zip:

Good old Billy Rocks eh! Brings back memories........:beer1:

If all else fails ask the local CAB.

[simon1969]

As mentioned on another post recently no you can't take pictures of children under the age of 18 without consent from parents and this is written consent.

Here is the law relating to this

The Protection of Children Act 1978 by raising the age of a “child” from 16 to 18. This means that it is now an offence to “take, make, allow to take, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute, or advertise indecent photos or pseudo-photographs of children under the age of 18”.

Which goes hand in hand with the data protection act .
Think people are forgetting you are providing entertainment not the official phtographer.
Some people may think it's pc gone mad but it's to protect children, you will be surprised what peadophilles get their thrills from on photos!!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

As mentioned on another post recently no you can't take pictures of children under the age of 18 without consent from parents and this is written consent.

Here is the law relating to this

The Protection of Children Act 1978 by raising the age of a “child” from 16 to 18. This means that it is now an offence to “take, make, allow to take, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute, or advertise indecent photos or pseudo-photographs of children under the age of 18”.


Hang on - that doesn't say you can't take photos - it says you can't take photos to use indecently. There is a hell of a difference between the two.

[Corabar Entertainment]

Exactly what I've posted on the other thread where this is mentioned!

Actually, I've just remembered: It was on the news recently where schools who banned filming of the school play by the audience got their knuckles wrapped for being so bloody stupid!

I think this is a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

[simon1969]

Exactly what I've posted on the other thread where this is mentioned!

Actually, I've just remembered: It was on the news recently where schools who banned filming of the school play by the audience got their knuckles wrapped for being so bloody stupid!

I think this is a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

O.K. I have a lot of knowledge and i dont apreciate that comment and I do know what i'm talking about.
Most companies that I have and do work for will not let you take a mobile phone on site in case it has a camera on it due to the data protection act for a start.
As I said before it is to protect children from any sort of exploitation by paedophilles runs with data protection act as a lot of acts in law do.
You CANNOT take pictures of children under the age of 18 WITHOUT CONSENT it's the LAW just because people have got away with it and no one has said anything doesnt mean it's legal.
It's just to cover people's backs on here that's all, and legally same really goes for adults under the data protection act why do you think on Police Camera Action they have their faces fuzzed out?
It's not because they havn't been proved guilty yet.
They have asked the person in the film if they can identify them and in most cases they say no.

[Corabar Entertainment]

O.K. I have a lot of knowledge and i dont apreciate that comment and I do know what i'm talking about....and I didn't appreciate the way you replied to me in the other thread for asking for confirmation of your assertion.

Most companies that I have and do work for will not let you take a mobile phone on site in case it has a camera on it due to the data protection act for a start.
As I said before it is to protect children from any sort of exploitation by paedophilles runs with data protection act as a lot of acts in law do.
You CANNOT take pictures of children under the age of 18 WITHOUT CONSENT it's the LAW just because people have got away with it and no one has said anything doesnt mean it's legal.
It's just to cover people's backs on here that's all, and legally same really goes for adults under the data protection act why do you think on Police Camera Action they have their faces fuzzed out?
It's not because they havn't been proved guilty yet.
They have asked the person in the film if they can identify them and in most cases they say no....and I simply asked you if you could please point out the piece of legislation that states this. In reply, you have quoted a piece of legislation that clearly does NOT state what you say it does.

So many companies spout 'Data Protection' issues as a catch-all and take a 'just in case' approach, without actually knowing what the Data Protection Act states, and as such are perpetuating myths that have grown up around this and other legislation.

'Good practice' and 'The Law' are not necessarily the same!

Oh, and they pixelated faces on those sort of programs L-O-N-G before the Data Protection Act existed.

I am simply asking for independent authoritative verification of your categoric statement that it is against the law - which I still haven't seen (either from yourself or anyone else stating this)

[simon1969]

...and I didn't appreciate the way you replied to me in the other thread for asking for confirmation of your assertion.
...and I simply asked you if you could please point out the piece of legislation that states this. In reply, you have quoted a piece of legislation that clearly does NOT state what you say it does.

So many companies spout 'Data Protection' issues as a catch-all and take a 'just in case' approach, without actually knowing what the Data Protection Act states, and as such are perpetuating myths that have grown up around this and other legislation.

'Good practice' and 'The Law' are not necessarily the same!

Oh, and they pixelated faces on those sort of programs L-O-N-G before the Data Protection Act existed.

I am simply asking for independent authoritative verification of your categoric statement that it is against the law - which I still haven't seen (either from yourself or anyone else stating this)

Personal data should only be processed fairly and lawfully. In order for data to be classed as 'fairly processed', at least one of these six conditions must be applicable to that data (Schedule 2).

1.The data subject (the person whose data is stored) has consented ("given their permission") to the processing;

There is relevant peice of information you require.



Try reading and deciphring the data protection act or just click away with your camera!!
Thing is I don't think PLI covers dj's for civil action though!!
Acts are not passed through parliament for the fun of it I keep up to date with the law and legislation to cover my back and my employers and to prevent me from being prosecuted and is also good practice.
Which seems to me is not being followed by just saying on a website we have the right to take photos (erm no you don't !!! )
You need consent

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

So where does it say you need consent to take photos then?

[yourdj]

Just try and be creative though and get shillouettes against the lighting and stuff like that. Or you can mask the faces like spin said..

Hows this then for no faces (off my site):p

well only a couple in background.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_044PTfUkGaA/TDO1xj0KbKI/AAAAAAAACYw/2uMghADq9p0/s320/IMG_6509.jpg

[Corabar Entertainment]

Personal data should only be processed fairly and lawfully. In order for data to be classed as 'fairly processed', at least one of these six conditions must be applicable to that data (Schedule 2).

1.The data subject (the person whose data is stored) has consented ("given their permission") to the processing;

There is relevant peice of information you require.



Try reading and deciphring the data protection act or just click away with your camera!!
Thing is I don't think PLI covers dj's for civil action though!!
Acts are not passed through parliament for the fun of it I keep up to date with the law and legislation to cover my back and my employers and to prevent me from being prosecuted and is also good practice.
Which seems to me is not being followed by just saying on a website we have the right to take photos (erm no you don't !!! )
You need consent
So you are arguing that a photo of anyone without any accompanying information (eg name, address, anything personal whatsoever) constitutes 'data'? :confused:

By your definition, no-one would hardly ever be able to take any photographs whatsoever because of the risk of capturing someone else's face within the image.

Are you seriously suggesting that the newspapers get permission from every single person they show in every photograph in every edition?

[simon1969]

So where does it say you need consent to take photos then?

When you take a photo it is stored on electronic equipment e.g. a camera and you need consent for that.

[yourdj]

When you take a photo it is stored on electronic equipment e.g. a camera and you need consent for that.

What's the world coming too.

I was watching Delboy (OF&H) yesterday and he got out his car sat next too kid and had a chat at night. He then held his hand and walked him home.

He would be put in prison these days for that as everyone seems to be paranoid about everyone else and their supposed intentions which could possibly be media driven spin.

Although it is advisable to have your wits about you :cool:

[simon1969]

So you are arguing that a photo of anyone without any accompanying information (eg name, address, anything personal whatsoever) constitutes 'data'? :confused:

By your definition, no-one would hardly ever be able to take any photographs whatsoever because of the risk of capturing someone else's face within the image.

Are you seriously suggesting that the newspapers get permission from every single person they show in every photograph in every edition?

No they don't but they are liable to prosecution if person in photo objects,to having their photo taken and they still took it or person was unaware photo was taken.
Of course it's data under the act the defintion is any electroncally held records in a nutshell address or no address you have stored informaion on a peice of electronic equipment.
Which is covered by this law Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and falls under the data protection act umbrella.

[Corabar Entertainment]

...any electroncally held recordsSo you are saying therefore that if you used 35mm film, there would be no breach?

I have been looking around myself, and have been unable to find a single authoritative source confirming that photographs by themselves in any way contravene the DPA.

There does appear to be a possibility of contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998 (ie Right to Privacy) though.

EDIT: I know not an "authoritative source", but there appears to be a relatively decent article on Wiki that seems to pretty much tally with what I have been reading via Met Police Sites / direct reading of the legislation via OPSI, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_Kingdom:-


[edit] United Kingdom
[edit] Legal restrictions on photography
Amsterdam, Holland.

In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[2]

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[3]

It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court.[4] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence.[5][6] The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'.[7]

Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making child pornography or what looks like child pornography.

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[8]

It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.[9]
[edit] Copyright
This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (June 2010)

Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.[10] Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit.[10] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer - the person who creates it,[11] by default.[12] However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.[13]

Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his work, where a substantial part of his work has been copied.

Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies.[14] A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced, has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them.[15] As such, scanning old family photographs to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.

Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest.
[edit] Infringement

Infringement of the copyright which subsists in a photograph can be performed though copying the photograph. This is because the owner of the copyright in the photograph has the exclusive right to copy the photograph.[16] For there to be infringement of the copyright in a photograph, there must be copying of a substantial part of the photograph.[17] A photograph can also be a mechanism of infringement of the copyright which subsists in another work. For example, a photograph which copies a substantial part of an artistic work, such as a sculpture, painting, architectural work (building) or another photograph (without permission) would infringe the copyright which subsists in those works if the photographer intended to build a copy of the building etc.
The Radcliffe Camera, built 1737-1749, holds books from the Bodleian Library. Example of a building out of copyright.

However, the subject matter of a photograph is not necessarily subject to an independent copyright. For example, in the Creation Records case,[18][19] a photographer, attempting to create a photograph for an album cover, set up an elaborate and artificial scene. A photographer from a newspaper covertly photographed the scene and published it in the newspaper. The court held that the newspaper photographer did not infringe the official photographer's copyright. Copyright did not subsist in the scene itself - it was too temporary to be a collage, and could not be categorised as any other form of artistic work.

The protection of photographs in this manner has been criticised on two grounds.[20] Firstly, it is argued that photographs should not be protected as artistic works, but should instead be protected in a manner similar to that of sound recordings and films. In other words, copyright should not protect the subject matter of a photograph as a matter of course as a consequence of a photograph being taken.[21] It is argued that protection of photographs as artistic works is anomalous, in that photography is ultimately a medium of reproduction, rather than creation. As such, it is more similar to a film, or sound recording than a painting or sculpture. Some photographers share this view. For example, Michael Reichmann describes photography as an art of disclosure, as opposed to an art of inclusion.[22] Secondly, it is argued that the protection of photographs as artistic works leads to bizarre results.[20] Subject matter is protected irrespective of the artistic merit of a photograph. The subject matter of a photograph is protected even when it is not deserving of protection. For copyright to subsist in photographs as artistic works, the photographs must be original, since the English test for originality is based on skill, labour and judgement.[20] That said, it is possible that the threshold of originality is very low. Essentially, by this, Arnold is arguing that whilst the subject matter of some photographs may deserve protection, it is inappropriate for the law the presume that the subject matter of all photographs is deserving of protection.

It is possible to say with a high degree of confidence that photographs of three-dimensional objects, including artistic works, will be treated by a court as themselves original artistic works, and as such, will be subject to copyright.[23] It is likely that a photograph (including a scan - digital scanning counts as photography for the purposes of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) of a two dimensional artistic work, such as another photograph or a painting will also be subject to copyright if a significant amount of skill, labour and judgement went into its creation.[24]
[edit] Photography and privacy

A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[25][26][27][28][29]

Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[30] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.[27]

A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner[31], irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph[31] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public,[32] the work exhibited in public[33] or the work communicated to the public.[34] However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast.[35]

[Vectis]

This document (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf) also appears fairly authoritative and makes recommendations to help those taking pictures of children avoid certain tricky situations but there is no blanket law or rule that prevents you doing so.

That said, I too when using photos of children at parties for promotional purposes only use silhouette or 'backs of heads' shots not because I'm concerned about the legality of said images; more that I know that there are some very sick individuals out there who might want to view them in a totally different way to how I do.

[Corabar Entertainment]

Martin - yes the ethics of the subject are a different debate.....

I am just querying the fact that it is being stated as 'the law' and wondering whether it's a bit like all those sites that say that you must have PLI by law :zip: (Urban myth / Chinese whispers)

[simon1969]

So you are saying therefore that if you used 35mm film, there would be no breach?

I have been looking around myself, and have been unable to find a single authoritative source confirming that photographs by themselves in any way contravene the DPA.

There does appear to be a possibility of contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998 (ie Right to Privacy) though.

EDIT: I know not an "authoritative source", but there appears to be a relatively decent article on Wiki that seems to pretty much tally with what I have been reading via Met Police Sites / direct reading of the legislation via OPSI, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_Kingdom:-

No i'm sure that is covered somewhere too (35mm film) there is a lot of information on Data protection on the net its deciphring the jargon then looking at next peice of legislation that ties in with it.
This sort of thing is very prolific in the news now after indecent images were found on that nursery nurse/child carer phone.
These laws can sometimes seem crazy but put into place for good reason and because someone abused the liberties we had before.
Sorry if I seemed up tight before but I wouldn't give people wrong information on something like this.
It's all down to consent and most parents would not object if you asked, but taking it for granted you can take photos without consent is dangerous and a bit rude.

[Vectis]

rude

A-ha!

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter



There is no law preventing the taking of generic pictures in a public place, therefore one is free to do so. There exist various bylaws affecting certain situations, for example schools preventing the video recording of the nativity play. And there exist various safeguards in respect of the storage and distribution of said images, ie the Data Protection Act etc..

But by and large there's nothing in law to prevent a DJ taking a snapshot at a party in a public venue and, so long as the use of the image isn't libellous or slanderous the DJ can do with it as he/she wishes, as he/she is the copyright owner.

Now if you're talking about private venues, that's another matter.

So a DJ taking a piccy at a kids party in someone's home might have a problem.

[Corabar Entertainment]

Getting a little bit closer to the truth now....

From reading a few law sites plus the Information Commissioners Office (the relevant regulatory body) advice, and summarising immensely!

Apparently, the courts have had a case before them (Durant v Financial Services) where they decided that photographs of people are capable of being personal data where the name and image of a person are linked - or are capable of being linked.

It still hasn't come before the courts as to whether a picture on its own (without a name) constitutes personal data, and whether or not the fact that someone may recognise them would be sufficient to satisfy the "capable of being linked" criteria.

The advice is to err on the site of caution if you want to avoid any possibility of breach (ie obtain consent), but in any event, the first course of action for anyone affected is for the injured party (ie the person in the photograph) to write to the data processor (eg the person who took the photograph) to prevent them processing / continuing to process the data where this processing is likely to cause substantial and unnecessary damage or distress to them or another person (roughly translated to this situation: delete the photograph).

Other than those previously mentioned regarding indecent photos or pseudo photos, there are no special provisions relating to children that I can find.

ADDITION: Even ICO guidelines state that they cannot see ANY case unless someone is the focus of the photograph (so that negates crowd shots).

...and Martin: yes - the owners of private property obviously have the right to dictate what happens on their premises, so agree 100% with you there

[JTRS]

When you take a photo it is stored on electronic equipment e.g. a camera and you need consent for that.

Sorry but that is just plain wrong

In addition to what Angela has posted you may also like to read this link, it's for photographers and it was compiled by some very well qualified legal people, the end of the first page and start of the second page covers the photography of children in a public place, which is totally legal (no consent needed), however, there are restrictions on what you can do with those images.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

JTRS

[Corabar Entertainment]

JTRS: After all the to-ing and fro-ing we've had moving / deleting / reposting / PMing to get your post here.... is now a good time to draw your attentions to Martin's post earlier in this thread?
This document (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf) also appears fairly authoritative and makes recommendations to help those taking pictures of children avoid certain tricky situations but there is no blanket law or rule that prevents you doing so.

That said, I too when using photos of children at parties for promotional purposes only use silhouette or 'backs of heads' shots not because I'm concerned about the legality of said images; more that I know that there are some very sick individuals out there who might want to view them in a totally different way to how I do. :lol:

[JTRS]

:bang: :bang: :bang:

I'll stick to DJing, it's way way way easier

JTRS

[Corabar Entertainment]

:rofl:

[Jiggles]

Right back when I was helping the local primary school build their website the following restrictions were put on photos that were to be put on the site:

1. They were not on the no photograph list
2. They were not named with the photograph
3. They were not identifiable in text to the photograph!

2 and 3 sound the same but arn't. One is names placed onto the image and one isn't in reference to the picture it Left back is Brian Anderson.

This was told to us by the headteacher her self!

[Corabar Entertainment]

But the school can impose their own regulations over and above what is permitted by the law, so just because a school does not permit x or y does not make it against the law.... which is what we're trying to get to the bottom of here.

Prime examples of this are the schools who imposed the ban on parents taking photographs at school plays. They tried to hide behind the DPA, but have had to eat humble pie and admit that it never was, or has been a breach of the DPA, and is merely a regulation that they have imposed (and some have since backed down).

[Silver]

No they don't but they are liable to prosecution if person in photo objects,to having their photo taken and they still took it or person was unaware photo was taken.
Of course it's data under the act the defintion is any electroncally held records in a nutshell address or no address you have stored informaion on a peice of electronic equipment.
Which is covered by this law Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and falls under the data protection act umbrella.

Sorry I find that extremely hard to accept and believe. If that is the case and is law then why has there never been a case of a celeb, say Becks, Amy Winehouse, Royalty taking a newspaper to court under the data protection act?

Yes they do under breaking privacy laws, when the paper takes shots from a distance with a high powered camera, or over a wall standing on somebody's shoulders hanging on to a branch with their teeth.

What about at sporting events, are you saying people can't take photos of the FA Cup final!? Wembley will give their permission but that is not the same as Stevie Gerrard or John Terry giving theirs.

Sorry but I find your statement bordering on the incredulous. http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17424.gif

[Corabar Steve]

What about at sporting events, are you saying people can't take photos of the FA Cup final!? Wembley will give their permission but that is not the same as Stevie Gerrard or John Terry giving theirs.
Nevermind the sportsmen/women, what about the crowd? You can't tell me that every person entering Wembley Stadium has given their consent to being photographed

[Silver]

Nevermind the sportsmen/women, what about the crowd? You can't tell me that every person entering Wembley Stadium has given their consent to being photographed

Very true, plus of course any other photographer who is accidently in a shot!

[simon1969]

A small party is a bit different to a football match, celebrities have prosecuted the press in the past using mentioned laws.
This post was focusing on children and you can't do it without consent you are only looking at one peice of legislation as I said laws tie in with each other.
Most parents are unaware of this that's why you havn't been challenged. Pictures from websites are on public view, and some of you have security to stop copying of pics from your site you should be o.k.

[Vectis]

A small party is a bit different to a football match, celebrities have prosecuted the press in the past using mentioned laws.
This post was focusing on children and you can't do it without consent you are only looking at one peice of legislation as I said laws tie in with each other.
Most parents are unaware of this that's why you havn't been challenged. Pictures from websites are on public view, and some of you have security to stop copying of pics from your site you should be o.k.

:flog:

[yourdj]

What about at sporting events,

I would say if there is profit to be made out of someone elses work then You may face prosecutuion - especially if the press have paid big bocks to take pics. it common decency really.

I was at pure fashion show in London this year and no one other than the paid people were allowed to take pics as the clothes ranges were new.

There must have been 20 security around the catwalk just for that.

as for a mobile disco all you going to have problems with are paranoid parents. I have it on my Terms and conditions so if anyone complains i can say that they signed over the permission.

[DazzyD]

O.K. I have a lot of knowledge and i dont apreciate that comment and I do know what i'm talking about.
Most companies that I have and do work for will not let you take a mobile phone on site in case it has a camera on it due to the data protection act for a start.
As I said before it is to protect children from any sort of exploitation by paedophilles runs with data protection act as a lot of acts in law do.
You CANNOT take pictures of children under the age of 18 WITHOUT CONSENT it's the LAW just because people have got away with it and no one has said anything doesnt mean it's legal.
It's just to cover people's backs on here that's all, and legally same really goes for adults under the data protection act why do you think on Police Camera Action they have their faces fuzzed out?
It's not because they havn't been proved guilty yet.
They have asked the person in the film if they can identify them and in most cases they say no.

But not about the laws regarding the taking of photographs. Pretty much all you have said is wrong, but, with me being a fair person, if you can quote LEGISLATION confirming it's ILLEGAL to take photographs (not indecent images) of children then I will make you a public apology.


No i'm sure that is covered somewhere too (35mm film) there is a lot of information on Data protection on the net its deciphring the jargon then looking at next peice of legislation that ties in with it.
This sort of thing is very prolific in the news now after indecent images were found on that nursery nurse/child carer phone.
These laws can sometimes seem crazy but put into place for good reason and because someone abused the liberties we had before.
Sorry if I seemed up tight before but I wouldn't give people wrong information on something like this.
It's all down to consent and most parents would not object if you asked, but taking it for granted you can take photos without consent is dangerous and a bit rude.

Now you're getting in to my territory with Data Protection. As far as I'm aware (and, to be fair, it's a BIG part of my day job) the DPA does not consider images (for personal use and also limited commercial use) to be data that needs protecting. So to quote the DPA is totally wrong.

And just so you can see that I know what I'm talking about, this is from the Information Commissioners Office (the ICO who have overall responsibility for DPA) :linky (http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/introductory/data_protection_myths_and_realities.pdf)

[JTRS]

This post was focusing on children and you can't do it without consent you are only looking at one peice of legislation as I said laws tie in with each other.


You are absolutely wrong on this point, you DO NOT NEED CONSENT, and there is no law against you taking photographs of anyone (of any age) or anything else for that matter in a public place.

Quite a few people have posted links to sites that you really should read

JTRS

[Silver]

A small party is a bit different to a football match, celebrities have prosecuted the press in the past using mentioned laws.
This post was focusing on children and you can't do it without consent you are only looking at one peice of legislation as I said laws tie in with each other.
Most parents are unaware of this that's why you havn't been challenged. Pictures from websites are on public view, and some of you have security to stop copying of pics from your site you should be o.k.

I fail to see the difference between a small party and a football match, you can have small football matches, anyway size is not important here. There will be young children in a stadium of any size, be it your local park stand, capacity 50 or the Nou Camp, capacity 98,787.

Sorry but I have read the thread through again and cannot see any hard evidence to any actual laws. You say they exist but to date have not shown written proof. All your arguements seemed to be based on your interpretations.

Once people start stating this is law, that is law I feel written evidence needs to be provided for everybody's benefit, this is far from a light hearted topic.

[Corabar Entertainment]

Once people start stating this is law, that is law I feel written evidence needs to be provided for everybody's benefit, this is far from a light hearted topic.
Which is where we came in! Full circle :lol:

[Silver]

Which is where we came in! Full circle :lol:

http://planetsmilies.net/tongue-smiley-8855.gif

Crikes and not off topic in 50 posts! http://planetsmilies.net/eat-drink-smiley-7858.gif

[rob1963]

You are absolutely wrong on this point, you DO NOT NEED CONSENT, and there is no law against you taking photographs of anyone (of any age) or anything else for that matter in a public place.

Indeed.

Just imagine the ridiculous situation we'd have otherwise.

You're sightseeing in Trafalgar Square and want to take a photo of the person you're with, but can't do so until you've got a signed authority from the 50 people behind them giving their consent to appear in the background of your photo!

:Laugh:

[DazzyD]

Indeed.

Just imagine the ridiculous situation we'd have otherwise.

You're sightseeing in Trafalgar Square and want to take a photo of the person you're with, but can't do so until you've got a signed authority from the 50 people behind them giving their consent to appear in the background of your photo!

:Laugh:

Pretty good analogy, Rob. If it were law then it would be pretty farcial.

Mind you, if it were law then I wouldn't have gotten wrong that day I was at tech college and was meant to researching at the local library. When I (and two others) were filmed coming out of a pub and shown on the 6 o'clock news (there was a report about something happening in the street) then this wouldn't have been seen without my consent. I would have gotten away with it!! :(

[Vectis]

You're sightseeing in Trafalgar Square and want to take a photo of the person you're with, but can't do so until you've got a signed authority from the 50 people behind them giving their consent to appear in the background of your photo!

:Laugh:

Actually Rob it's a bit more than that ... there are just a very small handful of places in the UK where you can't photograph for commercial purposes, one of which just happens to be Trafalgar Square you donut :)

Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

OK it's wiki but I have read this elsewhere.... this was just the quickest link I could find to back it up :o

[rob1963]

Actually Rob it's a bit more than that ... there are just a very small handful of places in the UK where you can't photograph for commercial purposes, one of which just happens to be Trafalgar Square you donut :)

Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

OK it's wiki but I have read this elsewhere.... this was just the quickest link I could find to back it up :o

Trust me to use one of the few places where you can't take photos as an example!

:doh:

However, my point remains.

[DazzyD]

Actually Rob it's a bit more than that ... there are just a very small handful of places in the UK where you can't photograph for commercial purposes, one of which just happens to be Trafalgar Square you donut :)

Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

OK it's wiki but I have read this elsewhere.... this was just the quickest link I could find to back it up :o

Actually, Martin, I've read this before. I feel like a right donkey, now! :doh:


Trust me to use one of the few places where you can't take photos as an example!

:doh:

However, my point remains.

Might not have been the best analogy, Rob, but the principle of your post was still spot on!

[Vectis]

Trust me to use one of the few places where you can't take photos as an example!

:doh:

However, my point remains.

It does remain.

I know how you like a little pedant handbag slapping contest occasionally :D :handbag:

[simon1969]

Apologies to all who replied and posted and read my posts on this matter :o :o :o :o :o :o
Read all the links people put up (should have seen them before) .
Did feverishly look round for proof to no avail!!
Consent does apply though relating to my job role that's where I made my mistake im very sorry to everyone.
Also got bogged down with legal jargon on various sites.

[rob1963]

Indeed.

Just imagine the ridiculous situation we'd have otherwise.

You're sightseeing in Trafalgar Square and want to take a photo of the person you're with, but can't do so until you've got a signed authority from the 50 people behind them giving their consent to appear in the background of your photo!

:Laugh:


Actually Rob it's a bit more than that ... there are just a very small handful of places in the UK where you can't photograph for commercial purposes, one of which just happens to be Trafalgar Square you donut :)


Trust me to use one of the few places where you can't take photos as an example!

:doh:

However, my point remains.


It does remain.


Okay, for Trafalgar Square, substitute Brighton beach!

That should work!

:D


Apologies to all who replied and posted and read my posts on this matter :o :o :o :o :o :o
Read all the links people put up (should have seen them before) .
Did feverishly look round for proof to no avail!!
Consent does apply though relating to my job role that's where I made my mistake im very sorry to everyone.
Also got bogged down with legal jargon on various sites.

Apology accepted.

:)

[Silver]

Apologies to all who replied and posted and read my posts on this matter :o :o :o :o :o :o
Read all the links people put up (should have seen them before) .
Did feverishly look round for proof to no avail!!
Consent does apply though relating to my job role that's where I made my mistake im very sorry to everyone.
Also got bogged down with legal jargon on various sites.

Well done that man. http://planetsmilies.net/eat-drink-smiley-5170.gif

[Corabar Steve]

Okay, for Trafalgar Square, substitute Brighton beach!
I'm assuming you deliberately picked somewhere where (on a certain section) full nudity in public is allowed. (presumably so that you can come out with some long thought out witty remark when somebody notices it?)

[rob1963]

I'm assuming you deliberately picked somewhere where (on a certain section) full nudity in public is allowed. (presumably so that you can come out with some long thought out witty remark when somebody notices it?)

Not at all, Steve.

I simply thought of somewhere with lots of people where you might want to take a photograph of someone, and this was to illustrate the point about how ridiculous it would be if you had to get written permission from all the people in the background to appear in your photograph.

I was therefore referring to the main beach in Brighton around the pier area where it's the busiest, NOT the quieter nudist beach which is along near the marina (so I'm told!).

As for having a long thought out witty remark, sadly you over-estimate me.

:cry:

[Corabar Entertainment]

Apologies to all who replied and posted and read my posts on this matter :o :o :o :o :o :o
Read all the links people put up (should have seen them before) .
Did feverishly look round for proof to no avail!!
Consent does apply though relating to my job role that's where I made my mistake im very sorry to everyone.
Also got bogged down with legal jargon on various sites.:thumbsup:

[DazzyD]

Apologies to all who replied and posted and read my posts on this matter :o :o :o :o :o :o
Read all the links people put up (should have seen them before) .
Did feverishly look round for proof to no avail!!
Consent does apply though relating to my job role that's where I made my mistake im very sorry to everyone.
Also got bogged down with legal jargon on various sites.

:approve:

It takes a big person to admit to being wrong and apologise like that.

I do think that legislation in this area is open to interpretation. Most places/organisations impose their own rules to cover their own backs because they don't interpret the law very well. Then people start to think this is the law and this fuels the confusion and misunderstanding.

It's about time they made laws totally transparent and that will be a big help to avoid the confusion.

[simon1969]

:approve:

It takes a big person to admit to being wrong and apologise like that.

I do think that legislation in this area is open to interpretation. Most places/organisations impose their own rules to cover their own backs because they don't interpret the law very well. Then people start to think this is the law and this fuels the confusion and misunderstanding.

It's about time they made laws totally transparent and that will be a big help to avoid the confusion.

Thanks and yes it is Daz and organisations do which doesn't help :confused: especially ones that care for children!!
I'm off to enjoy the sunshine !!!

[JTRS]

I'm off to enjoy the sunshine !!!

Let me guess....................Brighton Beach by any chance :D

JTRS

[simon1969]

I wish!!!!
More like my back garden!!
I do like Brighton though lovely colourful place!

[DazzyD]

I wish!!!!
More like my back garden!!
I do like Brighton though lovely colourful place!

Certainly is. On a hot day there are blue bikinis, yellow bikinis, red bikinis, orange bik.............. ;)

[simon1969]

Certainly is. On a hot day there are blue bikinis, yellow bikinis, red bikinis, orange bik.............. ;)

:lol: I was refering to the colourful buildings and feel good feeling of Brighton!!