Not Always an Ass
I heard an interesting discussion on the radio as I was driving to Sheffield today.
A man had been watching his ten-year-old son playing football for the boy's school team. The father started to take some photographs of the match, hoping that his son would score a goal and that he would be able to capture the moment with his camera.
The mother of one of the other boys in the team came up to him and asked him to stop taking photographs: she was worried that her son would appear in the photographs, and that they might end up on the internet and that paedophiles might see them. The man was told by the school that he could only take photographs of the team if he obtained permission from all their parents.
The same man had also tried to take photographs of his other child's nursery school play, but the school had stopped him. The mother of one of the children had subsequently taken some photographs but nobody had stopped her, so the man felt there was a double standard operating: because he was a man, he was under suspicion.
A lawyer in the studio explained the law in both these cases.
Firstly, the mother had no right to stop the man from taking photographs of the football match: she could if she wished ask him not to take photographs of her son, but there is no legal requirement to abide by this.
Secondly, if an event is happening in a building then the owners of the building can prevent photographs from being taken - such as, for example, in a theatre. So the school was able to prevent people taking photographs of the nursery school play, for whatever reason. But it could not legally allow some people to take photographs whilst preventing others from doing so.
And to me, for once, the law seemed to have got it right in both these cases. I think it would be ridiculous if you couldn't take photos of your own child - or even other people's children - in a football match without being labelled a paedophile.
There's also often a reason for preventing photos being taken of a school play - not least that you don't want flashes going off every two minutes. But I do think parents should be able to have photographs as a record of it - if they can't take their own, then the school should take some at the dress rehearsal.
What struck me was that the woman who said it was illegal for the father to take photographs of a football match had been believed. A few years ago the reaction would have been "Don't be silly, of course it's not illegal." Now people are more cautious, more ready to believe such things. I think that's a shame - it's helping to create a climate of mistrust and fear.
A man had been watching his ten-year-old son playing football for the boy's school team. The father started to take some photographs of the match, hoping that his son would score a goal and that he would be able to capture the moment with his camera.
The mother of one of the other boys in the team came up to him and asked him to stop taking photographs: she was worried that her son would appear in the photographs, and that they might end up on the internet and that paedophiles might see them. The man was told by the school that he could only take photographs of the team if he obtained permission from all their parents.
The same man had also tried to take photographs of his other child's nursery school play, but the school had stopped him. The mother of one of the children had subsequently taken some photographs but nobody had stopped her, so the man felt there was a double standard operating: because he was a man, he was under suspicion.
A lawyer in the studio explained the law in both these cases.
Firstly, the mother had no right to stop the man from taking photographs of the football match: she could if she wished ask him not to take photographs of her son, but there is no legal requirement to abide by this.
Secondly, if an event is happening in a building then the owners of the building can prevent photographs from being taken - such as, for example, in a theatre. So the school was able to prevent people taking photographs of the nursery school play, for whatever reason. But it could not legally allow some people to take photographs whilst preventing others from doing so.
And to me, for once, the law seemed to have got it right in both these cases. I think it would be ridiculous if you couldn't take photos of your own child - or even other people's children - in a football match without being labelled a paedophile.
There's also often a reason for preventing photos being taken of a school play - not least that you don't want flashes going off every two minutes. But I do think parents should be able to have photographs as a record of it - if they can't take their own, then the school should take some at the dress rehearsal.
What struck me was that the woman who said it was illegal for the father to take photographs of a football match had been believed. A few years ago the reaction would have been "Don't be silly, of course it's not illegal." Now people are more cautious, more ready to believe such things. I think that's a shame - it's helping to create a climate of mistrust and fear.
posted by Daphne at 11:28 pm
1 Comments:
I'm off to Roundhay Park !!
Post a Comment
<< Home