Travelshots Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 It all sounds OK BUT if anything goes wrong you are on very dodgy legal grounds. It only takes one parent to make a complaint and the school is in the dock along with you. Better to reshoot the whole thing ( not as an employee of the school) so you own the copyright and get the model releases for a small fee like a book token ... ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Could I suggest anyone offering help to the OP takes note of the contents of this http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/4746-every-photographer-should-work-for-free/?p=79693 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 6, 2015 Author Share Posted November 6, 2015 It all sounds OK BUT if anything goes wrong you are on very dodgy legal grounds. It only takes one parent to make a complaint and the school is in the dock along with you. Better to reshoot the whole thing ( not as an employee of the school) so you own the copyright and get the model releases for a small fee like a book token ... ???? I understand all that, but I'm actually struggling to imagine what can go wrong. I've seen thousands of photos here on Alamy of the kind of school photos I intend to upload, and some have no MR at all. The photos are all happy, smiley kids. Has anyone ever heard of a publishing mishap in these sorts of circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Have a look at these: http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?qt=maidstone%20grammar%20school&imgt=0 In the 'Images found' thread I noticed a pic from my old school, and then discovered this lot. No model or property release, though admittedly most of the kids are unidentifiable. As for potential legal problems, almost all restrictions placed on photographing in schools are imposed by the (some might say paranoid) schools, not the law. The only real applicable law in the UK is the Data Protection Act, which only applies if an identifiable person can be linked to information covered by the act. For example, if a named child is shown in a school uniform, you are essentially saying "X goes to this school" - which is data covered by the act. I'm no lawyer, but I used to work in a school too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 Have a look at these: http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?qt=maidstone%20grammar%20school&imgt=0 In the 'Images found' thread I noticed a pic from my old school, and then discovered this lot. No model or property release, though admittedly most of the kids are unidentifiable. As for potential legal problems, almost all restrictions placed on photographing in schools are imposed by the (some might say paranoid) schools, not the law. The only real applicable law in the UK is the Data Protection Act, which only applies if an identifiable person can be linked to information covered by the act. For example, if a named child is shown in a school uniform, you are essentially saying "X goes to this school" - which is data covered by the act. I'm no lawyer, but I used to work in a school too. Thanks Phil - that's interesting. So are you saying that if the people are identifiable and can be linked to a school then it breaks the law? All the photos I have in mind are completely identifiable by face and uniform. But then again, those same photos have been used in the school's prospectus which is published and could end up anywhere in the world, and on the school's website which is also public. Thanks for the help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 Carrying from your advice Phil, I'm contacting the Information Commissioner's Office to get definite answers. They deal with schools, data and privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Carrying from your advice Phil, I'm contacting the Information Commissioner's Office to get definite answers. They deal with schools, data and privacy.The main thing I'm saying is I'm not a lawyer!However, have a look at these: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/photographic-policies.doc A lot of interpretations I've read include the phrase "if the school agrees". That's probably the key point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 Carrying from your advice Phil, I'm contacting the Information Commissioner's Office to get definite answers. They deal with schools, data and privacy.The main thing I'm saying is I'm not a lawyer!However, have a look at these: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/photographic-policies.doc A lot of interpretations I've read include the phrase "if the school agrees". That's probably the key point. Very interesting document from teachers.org.uk - even though they are only a union, they have guidelines, and, like you suggest Phil, it's the school's agreement which is key. The media are specifically mentioned but not in terms of an agency like Alamy, so I will phone the ICO Monday. Thanks for the very very helpful documents and pointers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 Phil - I do understand that you're not a lawyer. But still good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 I'm not a lawyer! However, have a look at these: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/photographic-policies.doc ===== 2nd link broken. 1st link to a 2012 opinion piece. (4 yrs a long long time) But it seems to say there are no laws being violated, its school policy issue, ergo, in US anyway, the most school can do to violator of school policy is cite trespass...? I think the onus here in the UK is Child Protetion issues. BTW both those links worked for me, and the opinion piece was just an article about how some UK school deal with cameras in a rather over-zealous manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Why is someone giving Peter negative ratings for perfectly harmless answers to discussion points? Isn’t that just a form of cowardly anonymous bullying? Shame on you. Forgive and forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Perhaps someone remembers the obscenity and abuse in a PM to arterra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 Bit of a fuss really I suppose - it'll probably only be a few photos after all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I'm not a lawyer! However, have a look at these: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/photographic-policies.doc ===== 2nd link broken. 1st link to a 2012 opinion piece. (4 yrs a long long time) But it seems to say there are no laws being violated, its school policy issue, ergo, in US anyway, the most school can do to violator of school policy is tell shooter to leave or they will be illegally trespassing... Yes, three years is a long time, but the points made in the article are still applicable today. Until a couple of years ago I was working full time in a school and not surprisingly did a lot of photography of school events. I would best describe the approach to photography as paranoid. The restrictions placed on who could see the photos, where they could be stored and who could access to them were ridiculous - for the first year I didn't even have access to the folders on the network containing the photos I took and edited myself. The key thing (in British law - may be very different elsewhere) is that photos taken for personal use - by parents or others at school events - are not covered by the Data Protection Act, whatever the school may claim. Photos taken for any other purpose - commercial, newspapers or even the school's own marketing - are potentially covered, and this phrase "with the school's consent" or similar seems to be the key point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 A bit OT but it was very useful to read the ICO leaflet. It confirmed what I always assumed and acted on- that a photograph of a person is not personal data per se. The DPA doesn't regulate personal data but only the uses to which it is put. So if I take a picture of people in the street, it's not personal data, but if a police officer does it for surveillance, it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 Phil - seems as if your school was a bit paranoid about images! I was teaching at my school for 12 years and they have been very liberal and non-paranoid with the whole issues of photography in the school, which was very good for me as I didn't have to watch my back the whole time. And parents have always without exception said yes to their child's image appearing in ad hoardings or publicity material, all we had to do to safeguard that was to ensure the 'photograph pupil' box was ticked in their SIMs page. It was only when kids from visiting schools came to us for music days etc that complications began. It was then that just put my camera away and didn't bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 An example of a legitimate bad scenario might be: say, for example, the school is a private one (I'm assuming it is as it produces publicity), and someone uses the photo editorially to 'soft illustrate' an article lambasting private education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 An example of a legitimate bad scenario might be: say, for example, the school is a private one (I'm assuming it is as it produces publicity), and someone uses the photo editorially to 'soft illustrate' an article lambasting private education. It's a state comprehensive not a private school. All schools had to produce a hard copy prospectus by law up until 2012 (most still do as schools and communities like them). They are required by law to have an online presence for parents/carers. State schools compete for numbers on roll in areas where two or more same-phase schools exist, hence the advertising and promotion. But I take your point, Crypto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Peter, If i was you i would simply ask the school to put in writing they are happy for you to upload to a Stock Library site ( Your comment "the school has agreed in principle to this ") and then decide whether upload for RM use. However if the photographs were taken on a private site, the school, i`m not sure whether the parents have agreed to` this use` of the photographs of their children. If it was me, also a teacher, i wouldn't want the possible hassle in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterl Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 OK. Thanks everyone. Grateful to you all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 An example of a legitimate bad scenario might be: say, for example, the school is a private one (I'm assuming it is as it produces publicity), and someone uses the photo editorially to 'soft illustrate' an article lambasting private education. It's a state comprehensive not a private school. All schools had to produce a hard copy prospectus by law up until 2012 (most still do as schools and communities like them). They are required by law to have an online presence for parents/carers. State schools compete for numbers on roll in areas where two or more same-phase schools exist, hence the advertising and promotion. But I take your point, Crypto. OK, fair enough. I was a teacher for many years in a state school (Scotland) and we had a handbook, not a prospectus, and no advertising. We had no photos of pupils in the handbook, nor on the school website. There are very strict government guidelines about that (I was school webmistress until I quit. I was also, for a very short time, official photographer. Sometimes there would be a scenario whereby only seven parents of the winning football team members would give permission for a photo to be in the local paper, which then had to have the caption "Some of the team which won ..." One time we had a pupil who won a big national award for volunteering and I was told I couldn't publish his name or picture anywhere. After I pressed for a while to be allowed to speak to the parents, I discovered he was in a Place of Safety and it could be dangerous for him if his 'natural' parent/s discovered where he was). It seems that now the rules are even more strict here. My husband recently co-organised a competition for schools, and afterwards all the schools told him he could not have photos or even use the pupils' first names (only) in competition collateral. Way back (before the regulations got really tight) I saw a request for a photo for an educational publication (only sold directly to teachers) that I knew I could fulfil at my school. My Head wasn't at all happy about it and said I'd need to get the permission of the authority, which would be very unlikely, pay at least an hour's classroom rent at the non-educational rate (already twice the amount of the sum offered by the magazine) get permission from all parents (not unreasonable) and pay each pupil at least an hour at minimum rate, no matter how short a time it actually took. I once had a mother with two pupil daughters who (all three) were so alike and so striking (not conventionally beautiful or pretty), I was dying to ask them to come and pose (paid) for the camera club ( we found it near-impossible to get models out in the boonies), but all the above made me think I'd be abusing my 'position of trust', and I never asked. However, if your school, parents and local authority are up for it, you will have a great niche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.