Advanced search

Photos on social media and so-called "safeguarding"

(30 Posts)
TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 20:55:52

Okay so our primary school has a no photos of your child in a school scenario in Facebook rule. So whilst you are allowed to take a photo of your child at assembly, sports day, or the nativity, you are not allowed to post it on Facebook, even if it is just of your child and has no other children in the background, and even if it does not identify the location or the school.

In the past, people who have not realised this have posted a photo of their child dressed up as an angel or whatever on Facebook, and have been threatened by the head to take it down immediately or nobody will ever be able to take photos in the school ever again. (She finds out because one of the parents sees the photos and goes and tells her who it was and shows her their facebook page). So it is definitely active and "enforced".

Recently however, the school staged one of those "strange object crashes in field" type incidents for book week or science week complete with fake "news reporters" and people in boiler suits and everything so it appeared quite authentic for the children. Really great for inspiring their imaginations and I love that not all learning has to be with textbooks. But as part of this, an article in the local paper appeared "covering" the story including video footage including all the children filing out the doors of the school to the safety zone and general footage of their reaction, an interview with the head teacher etc, which was embedded into the newspaper article via YouTube link. This video had the name of the school and therefore the location, and footage of the students.

I've always understood that the "safeguarding" element of not sharing photos of children on social media was mainly about children who may be in foster care or adopted who could be identified and located by their biological parents, and other such issues, as opposed to "a pedo might find them" type things, as well as general privacy.

What I don't understand though is how this doesn't raise a safeguarding issue whereas a parent posting a photo of their own child with nobody in the background, is?

Does anyone have a better understanding of these things than I do and if so would they be able to enlighten me? If not, AIBU to think the school is pretty heavy handed about what parents can do considering how relaxed they are about what they can do?

NeedsAsockamnesty Mon 26-Jan-15 21:02:24

All of my kids attend schools where photography equipment inc smart phones is banned. But they do take promotional pictures.

They know who needs protecting we don't. It makes sense to me.

Trusting people on mass not to do something does not.

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 21:09:11

It would almost make more sense if the did ban them, though I'm glad they don't.

I can only imagine them telling a person to remove a picture of their child only is that it might make others think they can put group shots up. I'm not that thick but I guess some people are?

Hassled Mon 26-Jan-15 21:13:06

You have to hope they got parental permission for every single one of those kids in the video. Do you remember signing something? There's often a blanket permission form when you join the school - covers use of the internet, food tasting, walks in the local area, and photos.

Alambil Mon 26-Jan-15 21:14:46

weird isn't it - parents should have been consulted and would then be able to say "no" to publicity of their child if they've got a safeguarding need (if that makes sense!)

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 21:15:57

Yes, mine have permission to appear in everything, I have no issue with it. I'm just not allowed to do it myself! Presumably they removed anyone without permission (if there are any) from it, however I assume there are no non-permissioners because I don't know how they would have done that without spoiling the surprise. (It was done during assembly, big crash on the field, quick lets get out there and see what's going on, cameras on from that point)

Hulababy Mon 26-Jan-15 21:18:56

I suspect the school has a cover all standard statement re social media and photos from assemblies and shows. That way they are covering themselves and it is easier than going through all the various options where it might be deemed fine.

Regarding the newspaper image - the school should have ensured that the photo only includes images of children who are allowed to be photographed for use in outside publicity. They will have a list of children who are not allowed to be used on publicity shots and should check this.

We are taking photographs fr our new website at the moment and have such a list.

We also have a list of children who can be photographed and it used within school only (ie displays, etc) and a list showing pupils who are not allowed to be photographed at all.

Theboodythatrocked Mon 26-Jan-15 21:20:12

Yes well think that boat has sailed and there's absolutely no way you can control what other idiot parents post online. It's gone way beyond control now you just have to hope others are sensible! hmm

As for schools you generally sign up for promotional stuff like this when you enrolee your child. You just didn't read The small print.

It's pretty standard.

Hulababy Mon 26-Jan-15 21:21:11

I have easy to use software which can quite effectively remove small areas of a photograph - in a group shot it is easy to blue one tiny face out.
In closer shots you just select which ones don't include children who can't be used.
Or you position those children in specific parts of the hall, so you know they will be out of shot when the photo is taken.

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 21:22:29

I did sign up Thebody, I did read the small print, and I understand it. But I don't understand how me posting a photo of my own child and no others on my own facebook page is a safeguarding issue, whereas the school posting a video of the entire school in the newspaper and on YouTube isn't.

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 21:25:10

Can I just highlight that this is not about my children being in the video, they are not even in it. I have no issue with my children being photographed, named, websited, social media-ed, or any of that malarkey.

Pippidoeswhatshewants Mon 26-Jan-15 21:27:47

It doesn't make sense, Tatty, why don't you raise it with your Head?
I'd be interested in hearing the school's reasoning as our school is fairly inconsistent with their picture policy, too.

ScathingContempt Mon 26-Jan-15 21:28:46

They're being too controlling. I kind of understand that you shouldn't be able to post up pictures of other pupils online, but even that is tricky - what if your sister's child is also in the school? But to say you can't post a picture of just your child in a school setting is stupid. They have to spend the time reviewing each photo when some arse licking grass parent reports it anyway, so why not just review to check there are no other pupils in it instead?

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 21:35:21

Exactly ScathingContempt. I like the cut of your jib. You totally get where I am coming from! Nobody likes being controlled, and whilst I understand fully the situations where it can be an issue, why they have to be so heavy handed to people who use their common sense and figure that they can make their own safeguarding decisions about their own children, just rubs people up the wrong way and makes a mockery of the safeguarding issue.

Its like places who use the "health and safety" thing as one size fits all when they really mean "because we said so".

Stickerrocks Mon 26-Jan-15 21:39:52

It does seem to be a clear case of double standards if they are going to be so anal about what you do with your own photos of your own child.

I do find the idea of people running off to snitch to the head quite funny though. Haven't they got anything better to do with their lives? Surely the head should be worrying about other things rather than having an orderly queue of neurotic mothers queuing outside their door after the school Christmas fayre. I'd just check that my privacy settings were tight & post a photo of my own child anyway if I wanted to or simply email/dropbox it to anyone in particular I wanted to see it.

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 21:44:50

Its not so much a queue of neurotic mothers as one. And I know who she is! She just can't help herself. She needs these little strokes and pats from someone in "authority" - it makes her feel all warm and fuzzy.

Theboodythatrocked Mon 26-Jan-15 21:46:48

tatty yes totally get you. It's not across the board and it makes no sense.

Head teachers can control parents face book accounts anyway. None of their business.

Theboodythatrocked Mon 26-Jan-15 21:48:45

Sorry can't control!

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 21:49:06

Its true Thebody, you'd be well within your rights to say "no, I'm not removing it" and there would be nothing they could do. But they would then ban cameras, and you'd have that "spoiling it for everyone else" thing on your head which most decent people wouldn't want I suppose.

Theboodythatrocked Mon 26-Jan-15 21:56:43

Yep I guess it's technology going too fast for control and it's just too big now.

That parents needs tripping up btw. Go for it. grin

Stickerrocks Mon 26-Jan-15 21:58:03

A simple solution then is to remove the warm, fuzzy mother from your FB friends during a general clear out ("oh dear, I don't know how that happened, I'll add you again sometime"), ensure that photos are restricted to friends without any tagging available and post away to your heart's content. Perhaps when everyone else does the same, she'll work out why everyone is avoiding her.

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 22:01:14

Stickerocks I removed her the very first time I witnessed her do it to someone - so in theory I could post something without her having any proof.

I have to approve all tags of my name (because I'm vain and would die if someone posted a disgusting picture of me at 6am on Christmas morning with a hangover opening presents or something and everyone saw it before me!)

So I could just post away if I wanted, but as its a school rule I just go with it - I try not to kiddy-bore everyone on Facebook anyway so if there's a few I take at school that don't go up there, its not the end of the world.

Its more the principle of it, and the logic (or lack thereof) behind the "rules" that makes me go all hmm

WineWineWine Mon 26-Jan-15 22:06:46

If there is just one parent who keeps running to the head, why don't you unfriend them or limit their access to your posts?
School photos with no other children in them are perfectly reasonable to post, especially if the school isn't even identifiable (though many parents post a reference to their child's school at some point)

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 22:08:49

See above WineWineWine, I'm not friends with her. But this isn't even necessarily about ME being able to post, its everyone else, and just the general ridiculousness of the rule that seems so strict for parents yet so lax for the school in comparison.

TattyDevine Mon 26-Jan-15 22:10:16

I've never broken the rule or been told off personally, I heard the rule, understood it, etc during the induction phase and went with it. Others didn't absorb it quite so much and ended up being virtually publicly humiliated, which seems so unnecessary considering the way in which this footage has been used.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: