to be annoyed at headmistress' attitude?

[MummyDragon]

Bit long-winded, sorry, please bear with me.

DS (he's in Year R) started at a new school on Monday. Fab school; he's loving it; I am very very impressed with everything so far.

Except for this one thing!

I filled in all the forms, as you do, before he joined, and one of them was the form about allowing your child's images to be used on film, in print, etc. DH and I decided, very soon after our first dc was born, that we would not allow any pictures of our kids to be on the internet and that we would not allow them to be filmed. (I don't even put pictures of my kids on Facebook etc). So, on the school form, I specifically said that I did not consent to ds being filmed, and that his photo could only be used for in-school displays.

Yesterday a promotional DVD was being filmed at the school. All day. I did not receive prior notice of this but I thought this was OK as the school knew that I did not want my son to be filmed. However, as the children were leaving school the camerman was standing, filming, right by the gate so that everyone had to pass him to get out of the school grounds (there is only one way out). Therefore, my son's image was captured on film. (He was filming the kids leaving the classrooms, playing and then leaving the school grounds).

I wrote a very pleasant note to the headmistress this morning, asking her to please make sure that ds' image was not used and to please destroy any film of him if possible. She had a chat with me after school to tell me that it had all been sorted out, but she was not aware that the chap had been blithely filming away in the playground without supervision, and said to me, "only 2 children were not allowed to be filmed, which did make things a bit difficult."

Eh?????? So I don't want paedophiles to get hold of images of my kids and masturbate over them. Sorry but that is why I don't want my kids to be filmed, as there is no way to control who gets hold of the end results. If this is being difficult, should I care?

How many of you have refused to allow your kids to be filmed at school? AIBU not to allow it, and AIBU to be annoyed at what the headmistress said to me? (She did say it very nicely but she made me feel like a child again!).

Comments welcome, thank you

I'm simply stating what is policy where I live - its at ballet shows, nursery concerts, school performances..... TBH when I read it I prayed no one would sign the form to say they weren't giving consent as that would mean my DC would be excluded too.

but Op, I sympathesise with you - the school asked you for your permission, you gave it, and they ignored it. basically. so why ask? and you might be slightly OTT but then better safe than sorry and surely your DH is more of an authority on this subject than other posters who clearly think they know better ????

So to check (DD not school age yet):

No photos at her birthday parties
No photos at school events
May be group photos at school but her mates may not be in them

Or is it differrent if the photos are just for us eg her 3rd birthday with her little friends? Or do we need to get everyone's permission first? How does if all work?

It's the sort of thing that's so alien to me that I am bound to cock it all up and get into trouble.

It's the reason which is a bit weird.
Plenty of parents won't allow photos - if you're Muslim there can be religious reasons for it or we had one girl in my daughter's class the granddaughter of a duke and there can be security implications. But someone masturbating over the picture just makes you sound weird... anyway may be the child isn't good enough looking or naked enough on school photos unless it's a class nudist trip that the necessary arousal could be generated.... I'm afraid the thread makes me laugh at the absurd views of some people.

You have the right to be silly and hysterical and I am afraid that is very much what you are being OP. However having read chegirl's post I can see that the school should have been more careful to follow your wishes.

However it is an irrational fear that you have. In the extremely unlikely event that this happened you wouldn't even know about it. It makes no sense to worry about it. In a sense you are placing the responsibility for a potential paedophile's actions in the wrong place - with yourself, with the school and with the child's image rather than with the paedophile. Its a bit like saying girls shouldn't wear short skirts in case they get raped. Why should we allow sick criminals to restrict normal behaviour?

Do you have similar strong fears about anything else? like ill health or accidents?

I can't see anything wrong with what the head said - she apologized, said she's sort it out - what did you expect her to do?

I do think you are seriously unreasonable about the filming thing - what on earth do you tell your children about why they have to step out of the frame when a picture of the Nativity Play is being taken for the website? Imagine if you ds was Joseph - the website would show Jesus as the child of a single parent family!

If you're at a tourist attraction do you scan the area for innocent tourists taking photos in case your child happens to be in the background and demand that they delete the picture?

This happened recently at my DS's swim club (he's 1yo )

Parents / grandparent often sit at the side and video the class. They always ask permission. It's seems polite to do so. I've never considered that they are even remotely interested in my child.

But, a few weeks ago, onemum did take offence and told them they could not video her son (in reality: they couldn't video the entire class).

Sorry, but I don't think for a second the grandparents were interested in anyone but their own grandchild.

lovelytinofspam this is a perfectly simple question by the Op - is she BU or not? not sure if she needs your sarcasm.

you will find that most (good!) schools insist parents sign a form with their name and address if they want to film a group of children. or that camcorders and cameras will be banned completely. someone is looking out for your DD even if it is not you.

Oh Zenia, you are fucking mad.
"may be the child isn't good enough looking.."

think. THINK. Just once. You think whether or not a paedophile abuses a child (in image or in person) depends on how goodlooking they are?

I agree with you it is not a done thing. You have made a decision and the school have to follow this wish. We are in the dame situation where we do not allow our children's photo on the internet but do allow for local press. No videoing to be used for publicity This has recently caused an issued with the school wanting to put her picture on the school website after she achieved her bronze music award we did not want it their. My Dh has worked for the police for a couple of years and hears the stories. So keep on top of the no photo it is your decision and is a wise decision.

Ok. What are 'the stories'.

I have not given my consent, but it is not because I am scared paedophiles will get hold of the footage - let's face it, if you think like that, then consider that you could be at the supermarket or walking down the street and someone could be secretly filming your child for replay later! If you started down that road, you'd never let your child out of the house without a blanket over their head!

No, for me it is their general privacy. I would not be happy if someone took it upon themselves to put photos/videos of me into the public domain without my consent - I would consider that an invasion of my privacy, therefore I feel I have no right to do that to my children, or I would be a steaming great hypocrite! - I don't want anyone to put pics of me on the internet oh btw what do you think of my children, aren't they cute?

surely not stories about the police finding peadophiles wanking over class photos?

Do not know would not tell me I do not need to know I trust his judgement. Were doing for family privacy as well.

Yes, what stories? Has any child suffered from having their photo on a school website?

Mumbee, if children are being abused because of school photos, don't you think that is important info you need to share?!

I work at a performing arts school and we have in the past had two children whose photos were not allowed on the internet for specific reasons.

However each year we take part in a local dance festival at a local theatre with lots of other schools. It is a condition of taking part that all children are able to be freely photographed and videoed (by the local paper and theatre DVD company.

Anyone without consent is not able to take part so unless there is a real valid reason a child could be missing out on opportunities to take part in things.

DS1's pictures have been used on lots of occassions (he is a big show off) so I dont object generally (DS2 is the adopted one).

I think its a shame that DS2 has to be excluded TBH. It can only add to his sense of difference which is something I would rather avoid.

When I first bought up the subject of photos/internet with the school I was met with a sort of 'oh here we go' attitude. I seriously believe they switched off after I got the first few words out and just had me down as a neurotic mum. I had to keep repeating myself until I was properly heard. All very frustrating. I dont think b.mum would harm DS but the absolute mayhem and distress she could cause doesnt bear thinking about

Internet has huge implications for looked after and adopted kids. Has caused us no end of problems so far. TBH I think it has only just begun and things will get a lot worse for adoptive families. Birth families can track down kids in minutes with a few details and a pc. I really dont think social services is up to speed (though I wouldnt expect them to - it all moves so fast).

Schools need to get on top of it though. Agree with pp about abusive relationships and photos being used - v.worrying.

YABU because unless there is a valid reason why DC should not be photographed - where there is a court barring order against a parent for example, I do think it spoils things for the other children and parents.

I agree with previous posters who have said that perverts are able to find much more specific stimulus, (sadly) freely available in order to satify their habits.

When I first found MN there was a thread about people watching / photographing DC in a park or some such and possibly super-imposing their visages onto abused children Sorry if it has already been mentioned but the responses were overwhelmingly YABU.

This video of the opening sequence of the "Different Strokes" T.V programme, set to different music, is a good example of how something wonderful can, with one aspect altered become very sinister to the viewer:

www.wikio.co.uk/video/1008585

YABU because you don't know what exactly the camera man was taping, you don't know that he was taping at the precise minute your ds walked out
Also shots of them playing in the playground could be zoomed out so that you can't see individual pupils

Our school also send out one of these forms and unlike youhavegottobekidding if someone ticks no it just means that their children cannot be used for photographs for public use, no oneelse is excluded,
infact my dd was in the DailyMirror last Christmas eve appearing with one of the priests with 2 other children from the school, I had given my consent and she was so pleased to see herself in the paper

Dance class is different, at the show no-one is allowed to video or photograph, there are professionals there and you have to buy off them, this is suppossed to be for child protection

Look:

images.google.co.uk/images?q=pictures+of+children

173 million pictures....

Regarding things being altered to be bad, this is my favourite (Sesame Street):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUeN6LZNPVQ

More likely copyright riles PlumBummum. You have to pay a performing rights fee to video some copyright stuff so the buying it off a professional helps pay for that.

Someguy

What Youhavegottobekidding seems to be talking about is PARENTS taking photographs of school events/ballet events etc rather than the school taking photographs. Tis a different scenario, if I've understood her correctly from her second post. Is that right?

Hold on I've just come online and found that I am beign accused:

1. Of taking the piss and

1. Of putting my DD in harms way and not looking out for her interests

Where the hell has that come from? What is this implication that I am doing nothing to protect my DD from abuse? WTF??????

Am not happy. Can someone please explain what I personally have done on this thread which says that I am indifferent to protecting my DD my DD from harm?

FWIW the questions I asked were serious, I have seen many threads on here where people do not wish to have their childrens photos taken at things like parties. I don;t want to piss anyone off.

What is going on here? This has really upset me.

I may be wrong but I thought those permission forms were to do with use of photos and films.AFAIK if you are on public property it is perfectly legal to take a photograph of anyones child but not to publish them without consent.

In the OPs case the headteacher may well have planned to look at the film footage and instructed the filmmakers to obscure the face of the children who weren't allowed to have their images used.