Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 19th May 17, 8:59 AM
    • 416Posts
    • 258Thanks
    DJBenson
    Data Protection Query: Taking Photos of Kids
    • #1
    • 19th May 17, 8:59 AM
    Data Protection Query: Taking Photos of Kids 19th May 17 at 8:59 AM
    A situation has arisen and I wanted to dig a little deeper into the social and legal implications from you good people.

    My daughter attends a ballet class aimed at very young children (less than 4) and a debate has kicked off about the taking and sharing of photographs in the class, especially considering (due to the nature of the activity) the children are wearing relatively revealing clothing.

    A parent has taken a video of their child and inadvertently captured other children in the video. They have then shared the video to social media.

    From what I can gather, the above is fine (the law allows for the taking of photographs in public places for personal use - sharing to social media may be pushing the boundaries of "personal use" but lets say that this is acceptable).

    The debate is more around the ballet company sharing the video to their timeline. If a school or other organisation wants to use a photo or video of children, they generally need to get the consent of every parent whose child features in the video, but in this instance, they are not the authors of said video so do not feel they need consent.

    The question is, even thought they are not the authors, they are using the video for promotional purposes and subsequently removing the "personal use" element from the original video, so where does that leave the parents from a data protection perspective.

    If there are any lawyers or childcare professionals in the house, I'd be very keen to get your views.

    Over to the floor - don't hold back
Page 2
    • TBagpuss
    • By TBagpuss 19th May 17, 2:57 PM
    • 5,772 Posts
    • 7,544 Thanks
    TBagpuss
    The problem arises when an innocent 4 year old's dodgy relative sees the video, recognises the child can see the address of the ballet school and then knows where the child will be and can appear at the ballet school for whatever reason.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    I think this is a slightly different issue. If a parent says to the school "please can you take that video down - it places my child at risk because it may enable her abusive uncle / unstable birth mother / violent father to track her/us down" then they have actual knowledge that there is a specific risk to a particular child form that specific video or photo, and it is not unreasonable to ask them to make a change.

    I know that a lot of schools do have photo policies which take this possibility into account (I have a friend who had her daughter by adoption - she was involved in helping her child's school update their photo policy to try to balance the various issues. )
    • usefulmale
    • By usefulmale 19th May 17, 3:07 PM
    • 2,292 Posts
    • 4,202 Thanks
    usefulmale
    The problem arises when an innocent 4 year old's dodgy relative sees the video, recognises the child can see the address of the ballet school and then knows where the child will be and can appear at the ballet school for whatever reason.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    The 4 year-old has more chance of being hit by a meteor. Perhaps the ballet school should be relocated a mile and a half underground.

    You know. Just in case.
    Originally Posted by MSE Forum Team
    We’ve had to remove your signature because what you wrote was true and sensible and there's no room for that here.
    • honeypop
    • By honeypop 19th May 17, 5:06 PM
    • 1,451 Posts
    • 2,207 Thanks
    honeypop
    The 4 year-old has more chance of being hit by a meteor. Perhaps the ballet school should be relocated a mile and a half underground.

    You know. Just in case.
    Originally posted by usefulmale
    Quite a flippant response to something which does actually happen (yes very unlucky if there's actually more chance of being hit by a meteor). I know of 2 separate instances locally where a child has been 'tracked down' by a relative where the parent would rather them not know where to find them, by seeing said child in the background of a photo with other children.
    DS1 June 2009
    DS2 Feb 2011
    • clint_S
    • By clint_S 19th May 17, 5:07 PM
    • 354 Posts
    • 559 Thanks
    clint_S
    Heaven forbid that this four year old ever goes swimming if ballet clothes are considered revealing.
    • Robisere
    • By Robisere 19th May 17, 5:07 PM
    • 1,617 Posts
    • 2,406 Thanks
    Robisere
    Some responses here are wandering off into cloud-cuckoo land.

    I have a talented 11 yo gdaughter who has been dancing with a local school and appearing in shows locally and in other venues, for several years. There is a large photo on my wall as I type, from 2 years ago, which depicts her in what looks like 'adult' revealing clothing, but there is absolutely no doubt that this is a child. There are other photos of her at various ages scattered around the house, as there are photos of our other grandchildren. Stored on my NAS, backed up and protected against anyone else seeing them, are more photos of all 4 grandchildren and our two kids, at various ages, some naked (as babies and toddlers.)

    The point being, that any perversion connected with viewing normal family photos of children, is in the eyes of anyone who is perverted and manages to get to see them. The idea is to make sure that the best precautions are taken, to avoid that scenario. It's not about the legalities or otherwise - it's about who gets to see images of the children you love.

    Gd's dance school has always used one photographic studio for all pictures and videos of all performances. The studio and all its personnel, are subjected to stringent, annual checks at the specific demand of the school. If a new staff member joins the studio, they are checked. All images and videos are kept under strong security by the studio. No parent or anyone else attending the shows, is allowed to take photos or videos and this is understood by all. The dance school has an age range of performers from toddlers to 30+ and the older members are all mothers: they look after and fiercely defend all younger members.

    When a family member requires a photo or video, they are checked by the school to ensure that they are family, and parents get first choice. The parent gets a password and username, which changes after each show. The photos & videos can only be ordered online and only by using the password and username. The material is not cheap, but after buying the "hard copies" the parent may choose to allow other family members to make their own copies, which is what I do as a grandparent. I have a very good Photographic printer and I make copies for display in our home.

    This way, parents are completely in cahrge of where and to whom the images of their children go. Yes, it has to be paid for, but we split the purchase of photos and videos with our daughter. And we don't mind the expense at all: we are very proud of our own little star and we love having a record of her progress, as do her brother and her cousins.

    I might add that I have seen many of these shows, and there is no more beautiful sight than 16 tiny tots, dressed in costume, dancing around the stage.
    There may be more than one way to skin a cat.
    But the result is always inedible.

    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 19th May 17, 5:11 PM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Quite a flippant response to something which does actually happen (yes very unlucky if there's actually more chance of being hit by a meteor). I know of 2 separate instances locally where a child has been 'tracked down' by a relative where the parent would rather them not know where to find them, by seeing said child in the background of a photo with other children.
    Originally posted by honeypop


    Yes it does happen, but that's why safeguarding exists....
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 19th May 17, 5:14 PM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Some responses here are wandering off into cloud-cuckoo land.

    I have a talented 11 yo gdaughter who has been dancing with a local school and appearing in shows locally and in other venues, for several years. There is a large photo on my wall as I type, from 2 years ago, which depicts her in what looks like 'adult' revealing clothing, but there is absolutely no doubt that this is a child. There are other photos of her at various ages scattered around the house, as there are photos of our other grandchildren. Stored on my NAS, backed up and protected against anyone else seeing them, are more photos of all 4 grandchildren and our two kids, at various ages, some naked (as babies and toddlers.)

    The point being, that any perversion connected with viewing normal family photos of children, is in the eyes of anyone who is perverted and manages to get to see them. The idea is to make sure that the best precautions are taken, to avoid that scenario. It's not about the legalities or otherwise - it's about who gets to see images of the children you love.

    Gd's dance school has always used one photographic studio for all pictures and videos of all performances. The studio and all its personnel, are subjected to stringent, annual checks at the specific demand of the school. If a new staff member joins the studio, they are checked. All images and videos are kept under strong security by the studio. No parent or anyone else attending the shows, is allowed to take photos or videos and this is understood by all. The dance school has an age range of performers from toddlers to 30+ and the older members are all mothers: they look after and fiercely defend all younger members.

    When a family member requires a photo or video, they are checked by the school to ensure that they are family, and parents get first choice. The parent gets a password and username, which changes after each show. The photos & videos can only be ordered online and only by using the password and username. The material is not cheap, but after buying the "hard copies" the parent may choose to allow other family members to make their own copies, which is what I do as a grandparent. I have a very good Photographic printer and I make copies for display in our home.

    This way, parents are completely in cahrge of where and to whom the images of their children go. Yes, it has to be paid for, but we split the purchase of photos and videos with our daughter. And we don't mind the expense at all: we are very proud of our own little star and we love having a record of her progress, as do her brother and her cousins.

    I might add that I have seen many of these shows, and there is no more beautiful sight than 16 tiny tots, dressed in costume, dancing around the stage.
    Originally posted by Robisere
    I must say that is by far the most over the top security I've heard of.


    It's a photo, not a gun!
    • honeypop
    • By honeypop 19th May 17, 5:23 PM
    • 1,451 Posts
    • 2,207 Thanks
    honeypop
    Yes it does happen, but that's why safeguarding exists....
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Thanks, I know that's why safeguarding exists, I work with it fairly often in a school. I was trying to respond to the bit about more chance of being hit by a meteor than that happening, which makes it sound pretty impossible, which it actually isn't.
    DS1 June 2009
    DS2 Feb 2011
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 19th May 17, 5:29 PM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Thanks, I know that's why safeguarding exists, I work with it fairly often in a school. I was trying to respond to the bit about more chance of being hit by a meteor than that happening, which makes it sound pretty impossible, which it actually isn't.
    Originally posted by honeypop


    Yes but you also work in a school with hundreds of kids, probably thousands have gone through the doors at this point and you know of 2 cases. The point is, its rare
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 19th May 17, 9:02 PM
    • 416 Posts
    • 258 Thanks
    DJBenson
    Heaven forbid that this four year old ever goes swimming if ballet clothes are considered revealing.
    Originally posted by clint_S
    Last time I checked, taking photos (certainly at council run pools) was strictly forbidden, so the comparison is miles off the mark.

    Likewise for a previous comment on beachwear - if a camera was pointed at my children on the beach and I was not aware of the reason, I would be having a word in the photographers ear to put it mildly.
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 19th May 17, 9:10 PM
    • 416 Posts
    • 258 Thanks
    DJBenson
    Let me clarify "revealing" - bearing in mind these are tiny kids (hence "nothing to show" which is what some are clearly getting at) - some are in full ballet outfit, others in tutu's and dresses, underwear is quite often on display - now I take the point that perverts will be perverts and they can get off on anything, but that's not to say it should be made easy for them.

    It's too easy for someone of such inclination to follow these groups on Facebook etc. in the hope that something which they can get their rocks off to ends up on their timeline.

    I also take the point that worrying about this is rather futile, but I am bringing my children up in a far more dangerous world than I was brought up. I don't give one jot if that makes me sound paranoid or neurotic - the fact is, it's never been easier for these people to access material to their liking, nor has it been so easy for parents or children themselves to put that material out there, with ubiquitous access to camera phones, access to the web and internet connected toothbrushes.
    • professor~yaffle
    • By professor~yaffle 19th May 17, 9:13 PM
    • 477 Posts
    • 713 Thanks
    professor~yaffle
    Sadly I think anyone can be filmed or photographed anywhere these days. I don't agree with it, but the majority, who own so-called smart phones, think it's perfectly ok.
    • Kayalana99
    • By Kayalana99 19th May 17, 9:17 PM
    • 3,273 Posts
    • 5,916 Thanks
    Kayalana99
    The first point, is once something is on facebook - you agree under facebook terms about it being able to share etc.

    So commerical use aside, they are right if a photo/video is on facebook and publically availble - yes they can share it legally and if there are any issues, the orignal poster would be sought after (if they legally wern't allowed to upload the video etc)

    However, 'public place' does not count as a dance studio. That is 100% not public, and parents should not be allowed to take photos/videos of other people's kids without permission from the ballet company themselves.

    Here is where it gets a bit 50/50...are the ballet company allowed to let parents film other people's kids and upload to facebook? If they have permission to allow photography yes - but if not then I'm not sure.

    Either way, the person *if* any legal recourse here, is the parent that uploaded the video.

    As soon as something is on facebook, they are giving permission for it to be shared (but not stolen directly)

    "Facebook
    With over a billion users, Facebook is the definitive homepage for many web users. Its terms of service, data use and cookie use policy span more than 14,000 words over eight separate pages and would take even the quickest reader more than two hours to dig through. But what rights have you handed over to Facebook?
    Specifically for photos and video uploaded to the site, Facebook has a license to use your content in any way it sees fit, with a license that goes beyond merely covering the operation of the service in its current form. Facebook can transfer or sub-license its rights over a user’s content to another company or organisation if needed. Facebook’s license does not end upon the deactivation or deletion of a user’s account, content is only released from this license once all other users that have interacted with the content have also broken their ties with it (for example, a photo or video shared or tagged with a group of friends)."
    People don't know what they want until you show them.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 19th May 17, 10:05 PM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Last time I checked, taking photos (certainly at council run pools) was strictly forbidden, so the comparison is miles off the mark.

    Likewise for a previous comment on beachwear - if a camera was pointed at my children on the beach and I was not aware of the reason, I would be having a word in the photographers ear to put it mildly.
    Originally posted by DJBenson
    That's fine. But you would have no legal basis for complaint in the beach scenario.

    Private property can set their own rules.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 19th May 17, 10:06 PM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    Sadly I think anyone can be filmed or photographed anywhere these days. I don't agree with it, but the majority, who own so-called smart phones, think it's perfectly ok.
    Originally posted by professor~yaffle
    Not anywhere but 99% of the time you'd be correct
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 19th May 17, 10:08 PM
    • 14,625 Posts
    • 14,349 Thanks
    Guest101
    The first point, is once something is on facebook - you agree under facebook terms about it being able to share etc.

    So commerical use aside, they are right if a photo/video is on facebook and publically availble - yes they can share it legally and if there are any issues, the orignal poster would be sought after (if they legally wern't allowed to upload the video etc)

    However, 'public place' does not count as a dance studio. That is 100% not public, and parents should not be allowed to take photos/videos of other people's kids without permission from the ballet company themselves.

    Here is where it gets a bit 50/50...are the ballet company allowed to let parents film other people's kids and upload to facebook? If they have permission to allow photography yes - but if not then I'm not sure.

    Either way, the person *if* any legal recourse here, is the parent that uploaded the video.

    As soon as something is on facebook, they are giving permission for it to be shared (but not stolen directly)

    "Facebook
    With over a billion users, Facebook is the definitive homepage for many web users. Its terms of service, data use and cookie use policy span more than 14,000 words over eight separate pages and would take even the quickest reader more than two hours to dig through. But what rights have you handed over to Facebook?
    Specifically for photos and video uploaded to the site, Facebook has a license to use your content in any way it sees fit, with a license that goes beyond merely covering the operation of the service in its current form. Facebook can transfer or sub-license its rights over a user’s content to another company or organisation if needed. Facebook’s license does not end upon the deactivation or deletion of a user’s account, content is only released from this license once all other users that have interacted with the content have also broken their ties with it (for example, a photo or video shared or tagged with a group of friends)."
    Originally posted by Kayalana99
    The criminal justice act defines a public place anywhere where the public have reasonable access. Yes property owners can set rules, but it's not a crime.
    • Gloomendoom
    • By Gloomendoom 19th May 17, 11:02 PM
    • 12,496 Posts
    • 16,689 Thanks
    Gloomendoom
    Not anywhere but 99% of the time you'd be correct
    Originally posted by Guest101
    And it's not "these days", it's always been the case.
    Advice; it rhymes with mice. Advise; it rhymes with wise.
    • Jojo the Tightfisted
    • By Jojo the Tightfisted 19th May 17, 11:26 PM
    • 22,771 Posts
    • 87,554 Thanks
    Jojo the Tightfisted
    I suspect the only way you'll be content is to take her out of her classes.

    Which would be a shame, because the local weirdo is more likely to get joy out seeing her playing in the park than possibly getting hold of a film of lots of children doing baby ballet in a safe and caring setting.

    Or I suppose you could try looking for baby burkhas online. That wouldn't be weird at all if, after all, it only makes it easy for sickos to perve over children when you allow them to be visible.

    Seriously, infants aren't expected to cover themselves up even in the most sexually oppressive regimes, because they are infants, even though people who are that way will still find them attractive. They're more likely to be knocking one out to the readily available Pampers advert than searching for Miss Maisie's Ballet for the Under 3s matinee performance.

    Which reminds me, you need to get in touch with the baby milk manufacturers to let them know that the ad of the toddler pointing her toes and apparently thinking of being a ballerina is sexually suggestive.


    Just withdraw permission for your daughter to be featured in promotional material, report the clip to Facebook several times (using copyrighted material is probably easier than trying to explain to them that you think the clip contains indecent material) and I'm sure it'll drop off the internet at some point.


    Heaven help your daughter when she hits puberty if you're worried about her turning men on before she's even fully toilet trained.
    I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die: I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by.

    Yup you are officially Rock n Roll
    Originally posted by colinw
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 19th May 17, 11:56 PM
    • 416 Posts
    • 258 Thanks
    DJBenson
    I suspect the only way you'll be content is to take her out of her classes.

    Which would be a shame, because the local weirdo is more likely to get joy out seeing her playing in the park than possibly getting hold of a film of lots of children doing baby ballet in a safe and caring setting.

    Or I suppose you could try looking for baby burkhas online. That wouldn't be weird at all if, after all, it only makes it easy for sickos to perve over children when you allow them to be visible.

    Seriously, infants aren't expected to cover themselves up even in the most sexually oppressive regimes, because they are infants, even though people who are that way will still find them attractive. They're more likely to be knocking one out to the readily available Pampers advert than searching for Miss Maisie's Ballet for the Under 3s matinee performance.

    Which reminds me, you need to get in touch with the baby milk manufacturers to let them know that the ad of the toddler pointing her toes and apparently thinking of being a ballerina is sexually suggestive.


    Just withdraw permission for your daughter to be featured in promotional material, report the clip to Facebook several times (using copyrighted material is probably easier than trying to explain to them that you think the clip contains indecent material) and I'm sure it'll drop off the internet at some point.


    Heaven help your daughter when she hits puberty if you're worried about her turning men on before she's even fully toilet trained.
    Originally posted by Jojo the Tightfisted
    Take a step down from your high horse for a minute and take a moment to read back over my post, I'm very interested in hearing where you think I said my daughter was in the video.

    A couple of parents involved with the school have been discussing this situation and I thought "why not ask the MSE bunch" - it's a bit wild west sometimes but the general consensus normally surfaces.

    So distilling the advice, sarcasm and judging comments on my parenting skills - the pragmatic approach would be to get the original poster to take the post down, only she's not a member of the school, she attended for a trial and hasn't been back since, so that might be a waste of time, but it seems the best/only approach which is exactly what I wanted to get to the bottom of.
    • gettingtheresometime
    • By gettingtheresometime 20th May 17, 12:37 AM
    • 2,564 Posts
    • 5,650 Thanks
    gettingtheresometime
    Take a step down from your high horse for a minute and take a moment to read back over my post, I'm very interested in hearing where you think I said my daughter was in the video.

    A couple of parents involved with the school have been discussing this situation and I thought "why not ask the MSE bunch" - it's a bit wild west sometimes but the general consensus normally surfaces.

    So distilling the advice, sarcasm and judging comments on my parenting skills - the pragmatic approach would be to get the original poster to take the post down, only she's not a member of the school, she attended for a trial and hasn't been back since, so that might be a waste of time, but it seems the best/only approach which is exactly what I wanted to get to the bottom of.
    Originally posted by DJBenson
    Admittedly you haven't explicitly said your daughter was in the video but your OP does imply she is.

    My view is that whilst there are issues to be wary of, if we assume that everyone is up to no good then we might as well give up now - society has no future.
    Lloyds OD / Natwest OD / PO CC / Wescott cleared thanks to the 1 debt v 100 day challenge


    Next on the list - the Argos Card!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

5,038Posts Today

7,332Users online

Martin's Twitter