Here we go again... protecting kids or a money grab about photos at junior sports

[Kym]

http://www.news.com.au/national/gold...-1226464483814

Original : http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...ead-story.html

JUNIOR football codes on the Gold Coast say tight restrictions on people photographing children during games is a matter of protecting privacy and upholding religious beliefs.

But camera blackouts at matches have angered parents who say the use of contracted photographers instead of allowing family photos is just a money grab.

The issue of photographing children at games has flared up again after a local club prevented parents from using cameras during grand final rugby league matches at Beaudesert, instead engaging a professional photographer.

Gold Coast Junior Rugby League (GCJRL) also has a policy in place which requires parents to ask permission to take photos of their own children during weekly matches.

GCJLR manager Gary Phillips said the policy was put in place this season to ensure the safety of children with court orders and those in foster care.

Mr Phillips said although no families had ever raised privacy concerns with GCJRL, the policy was in place as a precaution.

"Our policy is that if you wish to photograph or video your child, you must ask both clubs permission," he said.

"That's every week during the year."

He said each club had the right to hire and designate exclusive rights to a certified photographer.

But some parents who were told not to photograph their children at the grand final match at Beaudesert are convinced the ploy was a commercially motivated.

Won't someone think of the children!! /sarcasm

[The Man from Mona]

umm the rugby club doesn't have legal authority to tell people not to take photos at games

[Presotto]

Smells of money grabbing to me!
How much of our freedom do we have to give away? Hopefully people will realise before it's too late!

[Ionica]

Can a parent/parents deny the club(s) the right to photograph their child?

[ricktas]

umm the rugby club doesn't have legal authority to tell people not to take photos at games

That is incorrect. They can create entry terms and conditions, exactly the same as every other organisation/company can for a venue. If YOU own or lease some land or venue, you have every right to state what can and cannot happen whilst people are on your land or in your venue.

[The Man from Mona]

they don't have legal authority on publicly accessible land owned by council, which is where they play?

[Xenedis]

Money grab.

Re "Our policy is that if you wish to photograph or video your child, you must ask both clubs permission":

"Our (the parents') policy is that if your commercial photographer wishes to photograph our children, then (s)he must ask both us and our children for permission."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[ricktas]

they don't have legal authority on publicly accessible land owned by council, which is where they play?

Umm, again, wrong! Their may be a lease arrangement between the council and the organisation that gives them rights, and without knowing all the parts of any agreement, it would be wrong to state the above. If you lease a council building to hold a party, you can still decide who can enter that party, hire private security to stop gate-crashers etc. Just cause a place might be council owned does not mean the public have full access at all times to do as they want.

[The Man from Mona]

but the council can't even ban photography on publicly accessible land

eg waverly council

unless the rugby club is state government

[ricktas]

but the council can't even ban photography on publicly accessible land

eg waverly council

unless the rugby club is state government

However, you are assuming that all these games are played on council lands. Some is probably education department, or private school grounds, and thus, again, those convening these events are legally entitled to offer 'terms of entry'.

However, I do see the parents reasoning here, and I think the organisations might lose out in the long term as 'people power' can be very convincing. As soon as all these parents get themselves organised and boycott games, stop paying registration and player fees etc, the organisations might well have to back down.

[Lance B]

Money grab for sure. I really am getting fed up with this sort of thing.

[norwest]

It's normal policy for child protection and becoming more prevalent. I've said this before in a previous thread about cameras at school functions. When contracted to photograph an event I'm told in who must not be included in any way, shape or form, including accidental background capture.

I'm not told of the individual circumstances as it's none of my business and against any individuals privacy concerns, but with the advent of snap now and upload to personal facebook pages asap, it's not difficult to understand how it could easily compromise the safety and/or well being of a child with legal privacy protection can be from, for example, a dangerous or abusive parent learning their location and/or the location of their activities. And I've always been surprised by the amount of children with protection orders. A negative of the modern world and the enormous impact on everyday life of internet social networking.

It's reasonable for a parent to be asked to gain a clearance to photograph a team, for all the above reasons.

In regards to a club contracting a photographer, junior clubs are also not for profit community clubs, serviced by hard working people giving their free time and with all income being fed back into the club for the benefit of it's members, the kids. If anyone resents a community club making a buck to put back into the club, they don't realise their kids benefit from it.

And no, parents won't boycott their local club. If they they don't have a problem with travelling further, well, they'll likely find that if another club doesn't already have a similar policy they will be moving in that direction, sooner rather than later.

[FallingHorse]

Sometimes I am really glad that the NT is 20 years behind our "southern counterparts" at least I can still photograph my own kid at his sporting events.

[Xenedis]

Sometimes I am really glad that the NT is 20 years behind our "southern counterparts" at least I can still photograph my own kid at his sporting events.

Yeah -- the cotton wool suppliers haven't set up shop in the NT just yet.

[Mark L]

"Mr Phillips said although no families had ever raised privacy concerns with GCJRL, the policy was in place as a precaution."
Wondering what happens with the photos the contracted photographer takes. Not put on FB for parents to order I hope.

[Speedway]

Its just an attempted money grab that wont work IMO. If I was one of the parents at those games I would demand to see the official photographer produce written consent from every parent before taking any photos and I for one would refuse to sign until the club withdrew the restriction. The child protection issue doesn't wash either as people could buy shots through the Official channels, scan them and post them on facebook anyway. Child protection has gone the same way as OH&S with unthoughtout rules and regulations made by people with no thought to consequences. I take photos of the kids football locally and have never had a problem, there is at least 20 cameras around the ground at most games but I still get asked for photos of individual players. I do a CD of the seasons shots to present to the kids of our local club on presentation day each year.
Keith.

[FallingHorse]

Yeah -- the cotton wool suppliers haven't set up shop in the NT just yet.

Now that we have a train, I imagine they are on the way

[norwest]

If theirs a child protection policy in place and implemented correctly, it does wash, because ..

I've said this before in a previous thread about cameras at school functions. When contracted to photograph an event I'm told in (that was to read "in not uncertain terms" ) who must not be included in any way, shape or form, including accidental background capture.

I also have to check each shot when editing to be sure I haven't inadvertently included one of the kids mentioned. So, the only photographs available to anyone, be it to place on facebook or otherwise, do not include any child under a protection order.

My wife and son are both teachers and a couple of examples have been pointed out to me as to the seriousness of the policy and why it's necessary. A mother and children attempting to live a normal life, in virtual hiding from a former partner with a long history of violent abuse towards both the kids and mother and also of seeking them out, is one example. Another is a formerly seriously neglected child being fostered by a local family after being removed from a drug addicted mother and a partner with a history as a violent criminal. Both intent on recovering the child.

If that's placing kids in cotton wool, then, so be it. I don't want placing the safety of a child at risk on my conscience.

[achee]

I see your point, Norwest, about the possibility of this being based on genuine child protection concerns. It sounds like in this case there were no specific kids to protect, though; it was called a precautionary measure: "Mr Phillips said although no families had ever raised privacy concerns with GCJRL, the policy was in place as a precaution."

It seems unnecessarily pre-emptive of an imagined threat, and I hope this trend doesn't encourage the fear of cameras (SLR's) in public places or promote the notion that it is illegal to photograph children in public.

[norwest]

I see your point, Norwest, about the possibility of this being based on genuine child protection concerns. It sounds like in this case there were no specific kids to protect, though; it was called a precautionary measure: "Mr Phillips said although no families had ever raised privacy concerns with GCJRL, the policy was in place as a precaution."

Yep, it states they haven't had a request as yet but appear to have a policy in place if and when required. I see a regulation requesting permission gained for anyone that wishes to photograph as not being a problem. That's part and parcel of such a policy as they can then take precautions if and when there is a protection order or parent not wanting child included, for their own reasons. Without such a policy there no method available for anyone with a camera to be aware. It's simply protocol that forces all parties to check before giving a yes or no.

The article only mentions an OK from both teams or clubs being sort, not a blanket ban and I imagine the permission is given if there's no players on their protection list, as happens in the schools I've dealt with. When dealing with kids in sporting clubs I never shoot without the OK of the club and parents, regardless of being a private commission or when doing it the past for the press. It keeps everyone safe, on side and gains credit for respect.