Interesting point of view for a sports photographer

[Colblimp]

1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

It's not actually the picture of the child that is dangerous - it is the identifiable place, activity, association that can be of concern.  "Single Child in generic clothing in generic play area"  not a risk.  A child in an identifiable uniform with identifiable others in an identifiable place doing an identifiable activity that is likely to be repeated at another time is a risk because it can be used to locate the child.   Of course, this is not all or even most children but it does happen and is a real risk. 
Also, there is the thing that I am not on public property,  some of the stuff I shoot it is me and the staff are the only adults present and my presence is monitored by the staff member responsible for safeguarding.  I shoot primarily for the participants and I make sure I comply with what is asked of me - I want to get asked back.

 

I've pics of named kids in a named place that will more than likely be repeated over and over again and I see no problem.  Not every person in the world wants to harm a child you know!  Talk about the nanny state!

[spacecadet]

11 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

 it does happen and is a real risk. 
 

Care to cite an example?

[Ambrosiniv]

26 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Care to cite an example?

I feel like we're going off topic here

[Colblimp]

43 minutes ago, funkyworm said:

 

Its a shame but personally I am cautious when it comes to images of children, especially with certain events like gymnastics. I just dont want the possibility that I may be providing content for kiddy fiddlers. It doesn;t help that I share my name with someone who has been convicted in this regard.

 

(I really am spending too much time on this forum I'll check out for a while.)

 

I understand about gymnastics, which I've never photographed and I doubt I ever will, but sports like footy, rugby etc, what's the harm?!

[Starsphinx]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Care to cite an example?

 

1 hour ago, funkyworm said:

 

Its a shame but personally I am cautious when it comes to images of children, especially with certain events like gymnastics. I just dont want the possibility that I may be providing content for kiddy fiddlers. It doesn;t help that I share my name with someone who has been convicted in this regard.

 

(I really am spending too much time on this forum I'll check out for a while.)

Funky it is not remotely about kiddy fiddlers - that is not the risk as any photographer knows the danger in that area comes from people with phone cams.

Spacecadet - the whole point of safeguarding is to not give identifiable information but an example would be John Doe repeatedly beats the hell out of his wife and son as well as threatening them with worse if tell anyone.  They manage to escape and with the help of the police and social services are relocated to an anonymous address.  John Doe is absolutely not happy and uses every bit of knowledge he has to track them down with the intent of killing them.  In such a situation a photograph of the child at "sometown stadium" in "thistown" kit could sign the child and mothers death warrant.  Even a photo of a known friend of the child can be enough to result in harassment of the friend.

Yes that is the extreme end of the examples - but it gives you an idea of what actual safeguarding concerns are - it is rarely about some indistinct possible weirdo who might be getting off but much more often about specific threats to specific children.

If you are shooting an event and no coach is requesting certain limitations then you probably do not have to worry.

[spacecadet]

I meant an example where publication of photographs of a minor had led to its being identified. In other words where the rigmarole had actually made any difference rather than being an expensive  exercise in CYA.

Fortunately such limitations are unlikely to come my way as I would never subject myself to them.

[Starsphinx]

21 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I meant an example where publication of photographs of a minor had led to its being identified. In other words where the rigmarole had actually made any difference rather than being an expensive  exercise in CYA.

Fortunately such limitations are unlikely to come my way as I would never subject myself to them.

Again the whole point is do not allow identification.  Where identification does happen it is not going to be made known to the general public.  It is the same as the limitations placed on reporting court cases involving children.  All I know is I am shooting on private property with permission and I play by the rules set me.