Cork - Playground photography prohibited

dakar

minikin wrote: »

This is completely unworkable... only commonsense thing to do is to ban children from playgrounds - thereby completely removing all risk.

Actually, we could completely put those nasty paedophiles out of business once and for all in one simple step. Ban children.

Can't believe no-one's thought of this before...

professore

I personally think you should not be allowed to take a picture of anyone, especially children, without they (in the case of adults) or their parents permission.

My son died of a serious illness last year and my wife recently put his name into Google. Pictures of him appeared in hospital which we were never asked to consent to along with other seriously ill children, many of whom may also have passed away, due to the nature of the ward he was in. The site in question was selling these pictures for profit.

As you might imagine it was extremely upsetting for us. I am sure it was an oversight on behalf of the photographer, but it would be a simple thing to sign a consent form clearly explaining what the pictures were to be used for. I would have no issues with photos in which people are not clearly identifiable or anything else.

charybdis

professore wrote: »

I personally think you should not be allowed to take a picture of anyone, especially children, without they (in the case of adults) or their parents permission.

The law is quite clear in this area. You don't need permission to take photographs of people. I can understand why people might think otherwise, but it's not the case for some very good reasons.

professore wrote: »

My son died of a serious illness last year and my wife recently put his name into Google. Pictures of him appeared in hospital which we were never asked to consent to along with other seriously ill children, many of whom may also have passed away, due to the nature of the ward he was in. The site in question was selling these pictures for profit.

As you might imagine it was extremely upsetting for us. I am sure it was an oversight on behalf of the photographer, but it would be a simple thing to sign a consent form clearly explaining what the pictures were to be used for. I would have no issues with photos in which people are not clearly identifiable or anything else.

This, on the other hand, sounds quite illegal indeed. Did you consult a solicitor or the hospital on this issue? It may be a slightly grey area if the site is affiliated with the hospital, but I still think you'd have good grounds to stop them selling pictures of your son.

I'm also at a loss to see the purpose of a site selling images of children in hospitals. Are trying to sell images to the patient and their family, or the images as stock photography, or just general pictures of sick kids as art?

thebaz

charybdis wrote: »

The law is quite clear in this area. You don't need permission to take photographs of people. I can understand why people might think otherwise, but it's not the case for some very good reasons.

there are many places where you are prohibited from taking photographs, only with permission , and a pass - e.g. prisons - and this is only right - I would have thought all hospitals were the same - i know some definitly are, and for a good reason, as per professore sad experience.

bizarely you are not allowed take pics around Dublin port , the reasons are vague, someone told me a threat of terrorism , and an irate security guard told me i risked causing an explosion , by merely pressing the shutter - God knows what is in those tanks that would be so sensitive

sineadw

jesus professore that's awful. And i'd have serious concerns even if it *was* the hospital's website - the fact that you came to the image by typing in your son's name sounds like a very serious breach of the data protection act.

I know (all too well unfortunately) that it's emotionally hard sometimes to press issues around the death of your child, but l'd urge you to get in contact with the hospital administration about this. It just sounds wrong.

IPWS

Some of you may be aware of the proposed Playground Bye Law going through public consultation at Cork County Council.

Item 24 reads:
“No person, unless they are a member of a family, shall operate or use a camera, camera phone, video or any other media device in a playground without authorization from the Council. However CCTV may be utilized by the Council and / or An Garda Siochana in an approved manner.”

I believe photography and photographers are good for society and that if this law is passed it will lead to more and more restrictions on photographers - it is time to nip this in the bud. Join The Photography is Good for Society Cause and voice your opinion to the lawmakers before it is too late.

In addition please do spread the word about this campaign - do it the old fashioned way by talking in the pub, if you are a geek - blog it, tweet it and Facebook it - whatever you do please spread the word.

Paulw

Already being discussed here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056219271

I was thinking, if this law were to brought to Drogheda, would I care? Then I realised I would. But I'd do something useful, like pester the local government types about it, and write to the council and local radio station that has a show on this kinda thing.

An online poll is a waste of time.

magicbastarder

why would a kiddy fiddler take photos of kids in public anyway?
i doubt they sit at home banging themselves off to imagery which is freely available on nickelodeon or on the internet already, in vast quantities, without any risk of being caught.

IPWS

Deleted User wrote: »

I was thinking, if this law were to brought to Drogheda, would I care? Then I realised I would. But I'd do something useful, like pester the local government types about it, and write to the council and local radio station that has a show on this kinda thing.

An online poll is a waste of time.

Thanks for your feedback - please do get on the radio because if it gets thru in Cork then it will spread. This is going through public consultation and if we have enough people supporting the cause then we can present that to the council. It is all about steps. So please so Join the cause

IPWS

You may be interested

This story is the subject of todays The Journal.ie Poll.

Many thought it was an April Fool Joke.

Please vote and have your say.

Then join the cause

Have a good weekend and keep taking pictures.

sineadw

IPWS wrote: »

You may be interested

This story is the subject of todays The Journal.ie Poll.

Many thought it was an April Fool Joke.

Please vote and have your say.

Then join the cause

Have a good weekend and keep taking pictures.

I'm currently writing about this very story for my dissertation, and a few things have struck me that I wouldn't mind some clarification on:

In the Journal.ie article, it says the by-law will ban photography in playgrounds. It won't - it'll ban people who aren't a member of a family from taking photographs. Whilst I agree that both the law and its wording are infinitely ridiculous, I'm not sure muddying the waters like that will particularly help. If people see that and then realise that it'll still be ok for *them* to take photos of their kids, you're gonna shoot yourself in the foot somewhat. Even if we all here agree that this will most likely lead to an outright ban in all practicality.

Secondly, public parks are *not* public spaces as far as I understand it, and are therefore governed by the same rule that you need to ask permission anyway, so technically this changes nothing. What it *does* do is further marginalise the camera by a weird double-legislation of the issue. Am I wrong in my reading of that?

On a final, personal note, PLEASE make something other than a Facebook 'causes' page. It reduces the subject to something of a game, with cutesy graphics and 'levels', and also most sane people I know blocked that app (along with every other one on Facebook) because of the stupid amount of spam they generate. You don't need anything fancy - even a facebook page for people to 'like' would be far more effective.

jcf

This is f**cking ridicolous !!! ???

Why would photos of kids anyway be banned as a protection for them ?
Privacy really isn't being infringed upon ...

It's not like it's a beach or a swimming pool where they will be in togs ??

Ridicolous - IDIOTS who worry about this sensationalised media crap and then
they won't think twice about feeding their kids processed junk.

Which is more dangerous to kids???


what a JOKE Ireland has become.

IPWS

Hi Sinead, My campaign is simply Photography is Good for Society - I am not qualified to comment on the specifics of the law. Regarding the campaign on Cause - that is simply the platform I choose. My worry would be changing now will dilute the campaign. We have a limited time as the public consultation ends April 20th. Please do call me on 086 2666 260 if you want to chat more

IPWS

Hi Sinead, My campaign is simply Photography is Good for Society - I am not qualified to comment on the specifics of the law. Regarding the campaign on Cause - that is simply the platform I choose. My worry would be changing now will dilute the campaign. We have a limited time as the public consultation ends April 20th. Please do call me on 086 2666 260 if you want to chat more

gbee

Doing some Confirmation photographs today at a church and was asked to sign a form as part of the new rules & regs.

Paulw

gbee wrote: »

Doing some Confirmation photographs today at a church and was asked to sign a form as part of the new rules & regs.

Who asked you to sign? What did it say? Did you sign it?

jaybeeveedub

CabanSail wrote: »

Personally I think this is a very positive and responsible move by Cork County Council. It is a well established fact that most peaodophiles have taken at least one photograph in their lives, often with a child in it. So this is a logical move that CCC can take to protect chidren. Let's face it, sales of cameras today cannot be accounted for by terrorists alone, so there must be another group that uses them. The only problem I can see is that they are not going far enough.

Do you realise that when questioned, nearly every paedophile has a habit of drinking Tea or Coffee. They indulge in this habit while thinking about children in unacceptable ways. Cork County Council should thus ban the consumption of these drinks within a kilometre of a child.

You do know that peadophiles wear shoes? Well what we should do is ........

couldn't have put it better....

good old inductive reasoning.... David Hume is spinning in his grave... and probably making indecent sketches of underage worms...

gbee

Paulw wrote: »

Who asked you to sign? What did it say? Did you sign it?

The PP, forms were in his office and it will be posted out to me, has not arrived yet, so I don't know what it says, but it must be done before next Confirmation or Communion.

K_user

So due to new regulations images like this are illegal:



Just in case the photographer is a paedo…

Yet pictures like this are hanging in peoples bedrooms, bathrooms, on cards and on posters across the world and no one look twice at someone buying one in a shop…

http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=36365

Go figure...

sineadw

no, images like that are *not* illegal. Lets not sensationalise this. We're certainly moving in that direction but we're still a ways off yet.

K_user

sineadw wrote: »

no, images like that are *not* illegal. Lets not sensationalise this. We're certainly moving in that direction but we're still a ways off yet.

I was being a little bit facetious there.

The point is that millions of people go to playgrounds with their kids every year, but on the off chance that a paedo might be among them, no cameras allowed.

Surely the more sensible idea would be to ban people with no kids with them from entering certain play parks? But that of course would lead to a whole host of other issues.

If some nut job wants to photograph kids for his own reasons, then he's going to do it. Cracking down on "normal" people and painting one section of society as "potentials", ie photographers, is inherently dangerous. What it comes down to is a guy with a camera near a child, in a public place, could be considered a paedo or a terrorist.

Perhaps a little alarmist, but no more so than banning cameras for the sake of banning cameras.

I say all of this knowing that I bring my camera to my local childrens park on a regular basis, to photograph my kids at play. And I'm starting to wonder how I'd respond to someone asking me to put it away. I understand that this is a local issue now, but it could spread, and that bothers me.

sineadw

K_user wrote: »

Surely the more sensible idea would be to ban people with no kids with them from entering certain play parks?

In fairness, that's *exactly* what this by-law is doing. If you read the whole thing, there's a section saying just that (21 I think? Can't remember) just before the photography bit. Photography is not banned by family members.

I talked to a legal professor about this yesterday, and as far as he can make out, there needs to be tightening up of the exact meaning, and scope allowed for family friends and nannys and such, but it amounts to ' if you're not with a kid then you're not allowed to go to the playground, and you're not allowed to take photos either'. Not 'no-one is allowed to take photos'.

I'm not condoning this, but lets at least get our facts right.

jaybeeveedub

K_user wrote: »

So due to new regulations images like this are illegal:



Just in case the photographer is a paedo…

Yet pictures like this are hanging in peoples bedrooms, bathrooms, on cards and on posters across the world and no one look twice at someone buying one in a shop…

http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=36365

Go figure...

there is a fundamental difference... the example you give us taken on the street which is public, however most parks are only open to the public... who are treated as recreational users, the responsible local authority being occupiers. which relationship establishes many rights and obligations under the occupiers liability act. as such local authorities regulate the use of parks via by-laws... hence ballgames allowed in some parks and not in others...

gbee

K_user wrote: »

Perhaps a little alarmist, but no more so than banning cameras for the sake of banning cameras. .

Two sad stories from new children at school in 2009 [we did not run it in 2010]. A very popular feature in local newspapers is the first day at school.

So I walked into one class armed with two professional cameras and a medium tele, and immediately one boy stiffen up and went pale. The teacher introduced us and the boy put his hand up "are you going to take me away?" he asked. Teacher, reporter and I looked at each other ~ what?

Another school the children were in the yard on break so it was a good time to accompany teacher and get a few snaps. We were having a great laugh until we approached one solitary figure who seemed to be missing out on the fun ~ as screamed and screamed and ran away sobbing and convulsing in fear.

Just throwing this in, this fear did not come from the school, it was the first day afterall, that's what is concerning about these two incidents.

In 2010 forms had to be sent to every parent unless were there in the morning before parents left, a bit impracticable as we'd only get one school in a day that day and locally we had a TB outbreak so that was the end of first day school visits.