That someone is using a made up law to stop me taking a photo of my child

[Spero]

My daughter is in her first ever drama festival. She is very proud and nervous. I want to take a photo of her. I am told I cannot due to the 'Child protection Act'. I am a family lawyer. I have never heard of this Act. Nor has Google.

So the objection is not that I may disrupt proceedings with annoying camera but that the mere act of taking an photo of my own child is somehow a child protection issue.

I am angry - not so much that I can't take a photo of my precious first born, but for what this reveals about the sloppy muddleheaded approach we seem to have about what 'child protection' really means.

AIBU to be so cross? Am contemplating stern letter of complaint. Making up legislation really isn't on.

Squirreled No, TheChandler, it was a genuine question.

Still have no idea, I think you want someone to use very precise words like long title, and short title to prove some point you have in mind - at which point, the flaming red face of a senior partner springs to mind, accompanied by the words "spit it out for god's sake, which Act do you mean?"

If I were one of the festival organisers (which I am not), then I would be concerned that someone is publically stating that they have a safeguarding policy that tells parents that they can't take photos of their children because of the risk if those parents taking indecent photos.

I think we all do.

I love the idea of "a person who put himself about as presumably some kind of spokesman for the festival". I would think it is more likely to be someone from the committee or one if the volunteers who has to stand up and do the usual health and safety announcement at the start of the session.

I think you have not yet reached the part about vicarious liability...

I am well aware of the published facts, thank you very much for asking. Hence asking for clarification on dates in a verbal announcement.

Published?

Just stopping on way home for emergency Burger King as had no lunch. Letter alas unwritten but I will see if I can perk up when I get back.

squirrelled - the invigilator made a general announcement that no photography was permitted in building due to the Child Protection Act.

I googled 'Child Protection Act' and got nothing relevant on first two pages. I then had flashbacks to the last time this enraged me, in Cardiff Ice Rink which had a laminated sign up saying no Photos due to Child Protection Act.

It was also cited in that Telegraph Article in 2008 and there have been many examples of its (mis)use in the book I have just bought about stupid rules.

I quite accept it would be pathetic of me to stomp all over kindly invigilator for possibly just misquoting something at me BUT it does suggest an unfortunate tendency for people to approach photography of children as an issue relating primarily to indecency, which I am very unhappy about.

If the invigilator didn't specifically mention the 1978 act, do you not think he was referring to the 1999 act which is listed in the published safeguarding policy? Yes, he messed up by saying Child Protection Act, but do you not think he was reading something out or ad libbing something derived from the festival's safeguarding policy and general rules? Do you even think they know there is a 1978 act?

It would have been much simpler if they had just said no photos (with no mention of child protection) but we have an official photographer who can take photos if you wish.

TheChandler - yes, published, as in to make generally known or to disseminate to the public, on the festival website.

I have absolutely no idea.

What I do know is that I now have numerous references to 'the Child Protection Act' used in context of prohibiting photographs of children.

Given that the only 'Child Protection Act' that exists prohibits indecent photos, I don't think this has any place whatsoever in any policy designed for parents taking photos of their own full clothed children.

Gosh! I wonder how many times I can say the same thing on one single thread?

Right. Off to write my letter now, Dobbin is out to pasture.

Ok, second non-scathing attempt

To whom it may concern

On Friday my daughter attended the Mid Somerset Festival. Before the acting competition, an announcement was made that photographs were not permitted anywhere in the building due to the 'Child Protection Act'.

The festival website refers to the following primary legislation as informing your child protection policy (list legislation)

The 'Child Protection Act' does not feature on that list. The only 'Child Protection Act' of which I am aware is the 1978 Act which prohibits indecent photography of children, indecent photographs being those which have a tendency to deprave and corrupt.

Further, the list of primary legislation upon which you rely appears to have no relevance to any prohibition on parents taking photographs, save for possibly section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989.

I note in particular that the Data Protection Act does not apply to photographs taken for personal use.

Of course I understand that there are legitimate reasons for wishing to exclude photography at such events, such as not disrupting performances or inadvertently publishing photographs of vulnerable children.

However, I would have liked to have take a picture of my child alone on the stage at the conclusion of the event to both commemorate and celebrate her achievement and I am curious to know what is the legal basis for the stated policy that I may not.

I would be grateful if you could clarify this point with me, particularly the extent to which you are relying on prohibitions against indecent photographs of children.

regards....

Catsrus, thanks for that link, only just seen it. Very clear, very sensible. Not just a list of legislation of no relevance, but actually clear guidance.

Limit photography, video recording or other image taking to designated areas in the school, for example in the main school hall where the event is taking place, not in backstage areas or classrooms. This information should be given to parents in advance, for example in the invitation letter to the event.
Assign a specific time during the event when images can be taken in appropriate settings. This information should be given to parents in advance.
Ensure children are appropriately dressed.
Ensure that children who should not be photographed, for example,those children whose parents have refused consent, are not included in any images.
Monitor the use of cameras and other equipment

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/14/introduction

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37

Which one of those is listed as informing the safeguarding policy?

Extract from the festival safeguarding policy:

PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOTAPES and PRESS PHOTOGRAPHY:
The use of all audio or visual recording equipment is strictly forbidden throughout the Festival, except by the official Festival photographer or Press photographers. The official Festival photographer, identified by a badge, will seek permission from a responsible adult attending with a child or vulnerable aduld for photographs/video to be taken. Press photographers, also identified by a badge, may take photographs by prior arrangement with Festival organisers. It should be understood that these photographs/videos may be used for publicity purposes by the Festival, including inclusion on the Festival website. This Policy makes it clear that, where parents do not wish photos to be taken, then the responsible adults attending with children or vulnerable adults are responsible for ensuring that children are not included in photographs/video.

THE LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE THAT SUPPORTS THIS POLICY:
The Children Act 1989; The Police Act 1997; The Data Protection Act 1998; The Human Rights Act 1998, The Protection of Children Act 1999; The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

Extract from the general rules:

COPYRIGHT
The Festival is bound by copyright law and cannot allow photography, tape or video recording during any performance or adjudication.

---

Is there anything there that says you can't take photographs specifically for child protection reasons? Or does it say that you can't take photographs for copyright reasons, but the official photographer can with the agreement of the organisers?

The legislation that informs their policy is as they set out.

I thought a photographer had earlier confirmed that this copyright point is crap?

Not sure I understand your question.

I thought the legal basis for forbidding photography was that as the occupier of the land, the organiser can set the terms of entry.

Nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with selling overpriced merchandise.

Filming performances is technically a beach the performer's copyright, unless the performer has consented.

Again, nothing to do with child protection, which in any event seems like a massive red herring to me. There's more danger in crossing the road.

Yes that's about filming live performance as you are copying the performance. A still photo is not the same in this context. (I do know something about copyright but not a copyright lawyer). Copyright is about ownership of something that can be described as a 'work', and only the owner has the right to copy it. So the photograph you take is your work and you own the copyright, your daughter 'owns' the right to copy her own performance - so filming is an infringement of it. The photo you were wanting to take is not.

The author of the work performed also holds copyright (or more correctly) performance rights.

The author was Shakespeare. I doubt he'll pitch up for any royalties.

Catsrus

I agree with what you say (although there are circumstances where a photo could amount to breach of copyright too). The point to note is that there are two bases on which recording (by photograph or otherwise) is forbidden. The first is based on not trespassing on the land occupier's rights. The second is not infringing the copyright held by the people performing on the land (strictly speaking, not the land occupier's business, but it's convenient for event organisers to lump the two together).

Neither have anything to do with the protection of children. I have to say that I'm a bit bemused by the some of the comments on this thread.

Interestingly I have just been contacted by a photographer on Twitter who gave me a link to his Facebook page - only 61 likes so far but LOADS of pictures of clearly indentifiable children. He says he gets permission from the parents.

I do think that social media is so ubiquitous now we are better off accepting that and learning to manage it rather than simply having hard to enforce and hard to respect blanket bans on even photographs of your own child.

Will let you know if I get any response to that letter.

Where I am right now, on the beach there's any number of naked children. A paedophiles paradise if you are that way inclined. Although to be fair nobody seems to be paying that much notice.

It really makes the OP 's situation look ridiculous.

Spero...I hope you do get a good response to your letter.

So do I, but I doubt it's forthcoming.

i'm tempted to say: just take the picture, and if they challenge you, invite them to prosecute under the "Child Protection Act".

Except that there's probably some frightful piece of little known legislation that deems the behaviour a sex offence anyway if it is 'appears suspicious to a person in charge of children' or something like that.

Dowser, quickly, report yourself to HQ and get that comment deleted. When I made a similar sarcastic remark about sitting at a swimming pool I was told this was a 'repulsive' comment and posters were wondering if they had criminal remedies against it.

As The Chandler so beautifully said, ironic comparison is a discursive technique not understand by many. On this thread at least.

Sorry, to be fair I think it was just one poster who would have liked to investigate my criminality. In the interests of accuracy and all that.

My comment was still deleted, which I found remarkable. Particularly as it had stood for about 24 hours before generating any outrage...

I don't think that swimming pool comment should have been deleted. It was clearly a sarcastic joke and if the poster who reported it didn't get it, MNHQ certainly should have.

But then I make similar jokes. I would use this line: 'ironic comparison is a discursive technique not understand by many', if only I could understand it .

But I think I get the gist and you have my sympathies.

Dowser where are you? It's a beautiful day in London but not beach weather. I'm filled with envy - at the opportunities for sunbathing, not leering.

I've put this in a separate post to my last one just in case the easily angered think I want to join you in the paedophiles' paradise and get both of us culled.