Is it legal for me post kids for C&C or do I need permission?

[MikeFairbanks]

I teach, and love taking pictures of the students. Unlike adults, the kids love the camera and are always asking to get their pictures taken. I am on the yearbook committee as well, so I get a lot of say on which pictures go in (it's all done online, thank goodness. No more blue sticky pages to submit over and over again).

Anyway, I take tons of photos of kids, including ones in the neighborhood. Half are posed and half are candid pictures of kids playing.

I'd like to post them for advice, but I don't know if it's allowed. Plus, I don't know how parents would feel. Personally I wouldn't care if my two girls' pictures were posted strictly for photography critique, but would not want them used for any other purpose.

Any thoughts on this? I apologize if this is an old topic. I searched and didn't find anything.

Thanks

[SwitchBlade]

In a public place there's no laws against it, though ones taken while you are at work on school property could be a different matter. Parents may still gripe anyway.

[geoff5093]

I work at an elementary school and I know here, we need to have the parents/guardians sign a release in order to have their students photos, voice, or work posted online.

As SwitchBlade said, in a public place I don't see anything wrong about that, unless the photos could be taken the wrong way and deemed inappropriate.

[JeffreyG]

From the standpoint of a photographer this is simple.

For editiorial use (blogs, sharing, comments, fun) you can post photographs of anyone at will (excepting the obvious stuff like child pornography etc).

For commercial use (catalogs, self promotion) you need a model release.

Your complcating factor is that you are an empoyee of a school district. The district may or may not have individual policy dealing with photography of students by faculty. Check that.

[MikeFairbanks]

Thanks for the advice. I see that as an employee I should consult with the district, etc.

I'll not post pictures for critique unless I have permission.

[AmandaMarie]

FOIP ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My mom is an IT Security specialist and head of a task force. 100% not legal unless you have express written consent from the child's parent/legal guardian.

[JeffreyG]

FOIP ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My mom is an IT Security specialist and head of a task force. 100% not legal unless you have express written consent from the child's parent/legal guardian.

Is that Canadian law? It is not the law in the US.

[geoff5093]

FOIP ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My mom is an IT Security specialist and head of a task force. 100% not legal unless you have express written consent from the child's parent/legal guardian.
I don't believe it is a 'law' in the U.S., but if you work for the district and parents see you posting pictures of their child online then you may have a lawsuit against you, if not fired as well.

[littleme]

I never post any child on the internet without a written release from their parent. I have photos I've taken of my son's kindergarten class (I'm the designated class photographer), but I would never post those images online without the parents' consent. Nevah! :) You just don't know everyone's circumstances.

[Trainboy]

Wait, I'm missing something here....
It's not illegal, but if you do it you could get sued on the basis of they don't like you?

[joedlh]

I don't believe it is a 'law' in the U.S., but if you work for the district and parents see you posting pictures of their child online then you may have a lawsuit against you, if not fired as well.

I agree. There are too many horror stories -- myth or not -- of parents themselves posting pictures of their kids on popular web sites only to have their kid's face show up on a kiddie porn page, photoshopped by some ****bag. In this case, the parents have only themselves to blame. If you posted a shot of their kid and the same thing happened.... well, you may as well flee the country.

[JeffreyG]

I agree. There are too many horror stories -- myth or not -- of parents themselves posting pictures of their kids on popular web sites only to have their kid's face show up on a kiddie porn page, photoshopped by some ****bag. In this case, the parents have only themselves to blame. If you posted a shot of their kid and the same thing happened.... well, you may as well flee the country.

Why would anyone bother photoshopping some random kids head from the internet (which is legitimate) onto a bit of child pornography (which is not)? Sounds like a myth that makes no actual sense.

And when we photographers self censor a completely harmless activity like sharing photos of children online, we are caving in to these raving lunatics that are paranoid about it.

I have several photos online of children that aren't my kids. In a few I don't have the faintest idea who the kids are. So what?

I only cautioned the OP because as a teacher she is taking the photos of her students in an official capacity and and lunatic parents in her class can cause her grief.

[geoff5093]

I have several photos online of children that aren't my kids. In a few I don't have the faintest idea who the kids are. So what?

I have a couple myself, I don't have a problem or really care about posting pictures that have kids in them that I don't know. The issue I have is that since you work for the school that the kids are in, you have things at stake (i.e. your job). Especially if the parents told the school that they do NOT want their students pictures on the internet, and then you go and post them.

[bobbyz]

If you took the picture, most probably you have a blurb in your contract saying that you can post the picture online. There is nothing illegal about it subject being kid doesn't change anything. Now if some parent doesn't want their kid's picture them just take it down to make them happy as they are your clients.

[TheHoff]

FOIP ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My mom is an IT Security specialist and head of a task force. 100% not legal unless you have express written consent from the child's parent/legal guardian.

On what planet is this?


Why would anyone bother photoshopping some random kids head from the internet (which is legitimate) onto a bit of child pornography (which is not)? Sounds like a myth that makes no actual sense.

I only cautioned the OP because as a teacher she is taking the photos of her students in an official capacity and and lunatic parents in her class can cause her grief.

Thank goodness for common sense.

I also wouldn't post photos I took in class, simply to avoid any possible headache associated with your place of employment, but photos you've taken in the neighborhood or in public places are totally fair game.

[Mom27andblessed]

Why would anyone bother photoshopping some random kids head from the internet (which is legitimate) onto a bit of child pornography (which is not)? Sounds like a myth that makes no actual sense.

And when we photographers self censor a completely harmless activity like sharing photos of children online, we are caving in to these raving lunatics that are paranoid about it.

I have several photos online of children that aren't my kids. In a few I don't have the faintest idea who the kids are. So what?

I only cautioned the OP because as a teacher she is taking the photos of her students in an official capacity and and lunatic parents in her class can cause her grief.


Nothing at all paranoid about this situation. I belong to several online forums for parents of children with Down syndrome and a couple years ago, one site was hacked, photos of the kids were copied and used in HORRIFIC pornographic ways. I know 2 of the childrens moms personally. It is most certainly NOT a myth and the parent who choose not to allow their kids pictures on the internet are not raving lunatics.

[TheHoff]

Why would a site have to be 'hacked' for someone to find photos of children?

Here are 2.7 million images of children with down syndrome: http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=down%20syndrome%20child&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Thinking that your child is going to be singled out for actual physical harm because a photo was put on the internet is, indeed, ridiculous. I'd suggest not signing on to the internet at all if you are that worried. I certainly wouldn't post any personal details on a public site, like this, or Facebook, if that is the case.

[Heath]

What is a FOIP alert? A google search reveals that FOIP stands for Fax over IP. I could not find anything about a FOIP alert.

[Mom27andblessed]

The site was hacked because it was a private message board/forum. I'm not saying that people should never post pictures...but I think IF the pictures are to be posted, the PARENTS should be the ones who say it is alright. Not just some teachers aid who wants some CC on their technique. I would be upset to find out my sons picture were posted somewhere without my permission...and I don't think I'm alone in that. Why do you think so many faces are blurred out on television shows.
I didn't say I'm paranoid about my kids picture being taken and used...I'm saying it DOES happen, it is NOT a myth and parents have a right to have a say when and where their childrens pictures should be posted.

ETA: I'm not sure what was meant by posting a link to a google search. Beautiful kids to be sure...and that book "GIFTS:" includes the story of my son Noah...complete with pictures!! LOL!

[TheHoff]

ETA: I'm not sure what was meant by posting a link to a google search.

No one has to go through the trouble of breaking into a private site in order to gain access to pictures of children. To say that they 'hacked it' just for that purpose makes no sense.

but I think IF the pictures are to be posted, the PARENTS should be the ones who say it is alright. Not just some teachers aid who wants some CC on their technique.

I agree that posting pictures from the school grounds is probably questionable but if he wants to post pictures from around his neighborhood than he is no different than any other private citizen photographer. Here in this country and in the U.S.A., we still have the right to photography in public places. Whether the subject is an adult or a minor makes no difference.

This discussion has been hashed out here many times but I'm sure it will be again... As Jeffrey points out, the danger posed from posting photos of children online is completely imaginary. What exact harm befell these children or parents where the photos were taken? The photos were of the children clothed, right? So what?

[Mom27andblessed]

Yes, pictures taken at the park, your front yard, neighborhood streets...all fine. But not pictures taken at SCHOOL.

I'm not getting why you can't comprehend someone would steal a pic to use as pornography. It DID happen, the FBI was involved and the case was closed. The harm done was actually to the parents. To have your childs picture snapped while they are open mouthed, perhaps singing a song or whatnot...and to share with people in a private forum only to have some sick twist steal the picture and manipulate it so it looks as if the child is performing a sex act...if you don't see harm there...I'm very sorry for you. I don't think that parents who are protective of their childrens images are paranoid or lunatics. The point was that if the kids pictures were taken at school, the parents should have an expectation of privacy. I sign every year giving permission for my kids pictures to be used...but many other parents do not. They are entitled to that.

ETA: Not all the pictures are of children fully clothed. Some were NEWBORNS in incubators...some where swimming in their backyard pool. But a person doesn't have to be in a state of undress to have your face put on another nude body. I just can't believe you are in such denial about the sickos out there.

[JeffreyG]

If the board was 'hacked' then the families involved must have been targeted. It wasn't random.

As Hoff pointed out, if I want some pictures of random kids with down syndrome (or other random kids) then I don't need to 'hack' anything. I can just pick some of the millions already out there.

And frankly, the whole cut-n-paste scheme sounds like targeted harassment. I can't envisage any other purpose to it.

It has been pointed out several times in this thread that it isn't a good idea for a teacher to paste the kids photos online without permission, mainly because there is a paranoia among a lot of parents and the teacher could face problems.

What worries most photographers is that these fears will make parents act to stop photographers from taking pictures in public.

[Karl Johnston]

I can't believe the paranoia out there. 1984 anyone? Come on. Just use a commercial model release to blanket cover your rears and then no more worries. I hardly believe that story either Cindy, sounds way too far fetched and something that could be copy and pasted off the script of CSI miami.

If millions of portrait photographers are doing it and the couple hundred thousand photographers on here (seriously; look at the toll at the bottom of the main page..there are over a quarter of a MILLION photographers on here more likely more than half of them which are doing people photography) then there's probably no harm done.

I don't shoot people without a model release, though, just because I want to control the copyright for myself (Canadian copyright act) and I want to be able to use the photos in my own commercial ads to adv. my services.

[Mom27andblessed]

I'm sorry you don't believe me. No matter. It happens. Why would you think it only happens on tv? People are SICK! Do you also doubt the stories of people killing and mutilating babies? or keeping women captive in the back yard while impregnating them? Those sound just as incredulous. People are so twisted. and no...it was no personal attack or targeted harrassment..except to the mentally retarded children. Seems they were assumed to be fair game. Some sicko got a kick out of it somewhere, but that you didn't hear of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'm not saying people shouldn't post pics of their kids...what I'm saying is that people should be careful posting pictures of other peoples kids. If that scares photographers...sorry for their luck. You can't blame the parents...blame the pedophiles and those who cater to them.

[SwitchBlade]

You don't have to be sick and twisted, I remember doing much the same thing to photos of local councilors. In the name of having a laugh pretty much any photo on the internet is fair game for chopping up and abusing. Hell look at things like starwars kid. The only way to be sure that no-one who is unknowing has it happen to them would be to never upload anything without a model release which strikes me as rather draconian.

[TheHoff]

I'm not getting why you can't comprehend someone would steal a pic to use as pornography. It DID happen...Not all the pictures are of children fully clothed. Some were NEWBORNS in incubators...some where swimming in their backyard pool. But a person doesn't have to be in a state of undress to have your face put on another nude body. I just can't believe you are in such denial about the sickos out there.

I never denied that this happened. I simply said NO HARM came to anyone because of it. Pasting some child's head onto another child's naked body -- well then that person ALREADY HAD child pornography on their computer. That original child was sure as hell harmed and that should be prosecuted. And yes even "faking" child porn through 3D animation or photoshop is illegal. Great.

But posting photographs from kids on a local street or neighborhood is not and should not be illegal. No one is harmed by it. You have far more to worry about from "uncles" and family friends than you do a random photographer on the street.

If you're concerned about children's photos being taken and photoshopped into pornography, why do you post your own kids?

[Mom27andblessed]

I did not say that I worry about my kids being photographed and their pics stolen. I simply stated reasons why some parents do not want their kids pics on the web. I have reiterated several times that I think it is up to the parents of the child. NOT the person taking the picture AT SCHOOL!

Not sure why it isn't getting thru. The families involved were devastated. The emotional harm is just as bad as physical in some cases.

And for the record...it was Karl Johnson who said I hardly believe that story either Cindy, sounds way too far fetched and something that could be copy and pasted off the script of CSI miami.
.

[Mom27andblessed]

You don't have to be sick and twisted, I remember doing much the same thing to photos of local councilors. In the name of having a laugh pretty much any photo on the internet is fair game for chopping up and abusing. Hell look at things like starwars kid. The only way to be sure that no-one who is unknowing has it happen to them would be to never upload anything without a model release which strikes me as rather draconian.


See...now THIS is disturbing...

[joedlh]

There have been many hypotheses proposed for why someone would take the face of a child and put it on another child in a pornographic picture. Think about it: you're the perp. The cops try very hard to find the victims of pornography. If they find them, it's a lead to the one who originally photographed it. How better to lead the police astray than to write over the original victim's face with someone who was not related and if traced could not lead to them. The low lifes who are involved in children's pornography are known to go to great efforts to hide their tracks, including all the tricks that spam criminals use to randomize and jump the ip addresses of the sites serving it up.

As to those who claim no harm to the children whose faces were used in this way, how would you like it if you went to a job interview one day and it was determined that your face appeared in kiddie porn? Not to mention the sense of violation that your face was used in that way.

It embarrasses me to call myself a photographer when others speak as if they have the god-given right to take pictures of anything they want and use them in any way they want without the slightest concern for any potential repercussions short of criminal prosecution or civil charges.

[JeffreyG]

As to those who claim no harm to the children whose faces were used in this way, how would you like it if you went to a job interview one day and it was determined that your face appeared in kiddie porn? Not to mention the sense of violation that your face was used in that way.

Anyone admitting to having seen it would be admitting to a felony.

Interviewer: "We'd love to hire you, but I saw your face photoshopped onto some kiddie porn so I'm afraid not."

Applicant: "Oh really? You like a lot of kiddie porn? Let me call the FBI."

It embarrasses me to call myself a photographer when others speak as if they have the god-given right to take pictures of anything they want and use them in any way they want without the slightest concern for any potential repercussions short of criminal prosecution or civil charges.

Boy is that a stretch. The OP in this thread was actually asking about posting a few totally innocent images of her students for critique.

[TheHoff]

Not sure why it isn't getting thru. The families involved were devastated. The emotional harm is just as bad as physical in some cases.

Because pictures of their kids were photoshopped into disgusting situations?

I think they need to grow a thicker skin. Like I said before, if the faces were photoshopped into images of child pornography, then the real damage was done to the kids in the original photos, not the secondary ones. For whatever reason some sickos want to masturbate to images of handicapped children, then yes, prosecute them, but why a parent would take this personally is beyond me.

The sicko could've taken one of 20 million photos on the internet for their "pleasure" and thinking it is personal is ridiculous. They're scum that should be put away but this is reminiscent of the "stranger danger" paranoia fearing some physical harm could come to them because of it.

And yes, we've agreed that it isn't proper to do at school where the teacher is in a position of authority.

[Mom27andblessed]

I don't think feeling it is personal to see a photo of your son or daughter changed with an added penis or sex toy put to the face of your child. The kids weren't photoshopped INTO a picture...genitals and other stuff were photoshopped into the original of the child.

I agree...they could have taken any one of 20 million photos...but what happened was they hacked into a forum for the support and information exchange of parents of children with Down syndrome and took about 30 of the photos, added "stuff" and then reposted them, on the forum as well as scattered all over the web.

None of the photos were of my son...but I can assure you, it felt VERY personal to us all.

[Mom27andblessed]

There have been many hypotheses proposed for why someone would take the face of a child and put it on another child in a pornographic picture. Think about it: you're the perp. The cops try very hard to find the victims of pornography. If they find them, it's a lead to the one who originally photographed it. How better to lead the police astray than to write over the original victim's face with someone who was not related and if traced could not lead to them. The low lifes who are involved in children's pornography are known to go to great efforts to hide their tracks, including all the tricks that spam criminals use to randomize and jump the ip addresses of the sites serving it up.

As to those who claim no harm to the children whose faces were used in this way, how would you like it if you went to a job interview one day and it was determined that your face appeared in kiddie porn? Not to mention the sense of violation that your face was used in that way.

It embarrasses me to call myself a photographer when others speak as if they have the god-given right to take pictures of anything they want and use them in any way they want without the slightest concern for any potential repercussions short of criminal prosecution or civil charges.


Joe, my utmost thanks for posting this.

[Mom27andblessed]

jeffrey Anyone admitting to having seen it would be admitting to a felony.


Not necessarily. The photos I was referring to were posted back to the message forum they were stolen from as an in your face you can't catch us type game.

A friend closer to the action (investigating agent) said that the pictures were also sent out to others in emails and inserted into legitimate photos on some other sites. Rather like the pirated blogs and postings you've probably seen places. It was all very disturbing and scary to think that someone could do things like that.

[joedlh]

Interviewer: "We'd love to hire you, but I saw your face photoshopped onto some kiddie porn so I'm afraid not."

Applicant: "Oh really? You like a lot of kiddie porn? Let me call the FBI."


Oh pulease. Do you actually think it would come up in the interview? What world are you living in? Don't be so naive.

[DDCSD]

Oh pulease. Do you actually think it would come up in the interview? What world are you living in? Don't be so naive.


That was his point...

[JeffreyG]

Oh pulease. Do you actually think it would come up in the interview? What world are you living in? Don't be so naive.
If my suggestion about the hiring manager seems farfetched, perhaps it is because this whole supposed situation is so ridiculous.

Remember the scenario we are supposed to be considering here. A child’s image is taken from an innocent photo and pasted onto a disgusting bit of child pornography. Then, 20 years later that child completes his masters degree and is sitting for an interview. The older interviewer studies him intently…..doesn’t this 28 year old sitting before him remind him of that 8 year old face crudely photoshopped into some of his extensive stash of child pornography?

That seems pretty logical. It only requires a 1 in a billion coincidence to happen three separate times.

The scenario does not make the ‘no kids posted online’ viewpoint seem less paranoid.

[bigrob]

The world has indeed gone truly mad.

Nothing to do with photos but bare with me.

Last year my youngest son was due to take exams to try and get in to a selective school.

We were expecting a letter telling us when & where he had to go for the exams (over two days).
Well the letter never arrived as expected my ex phoned up and they said they'd send another one. Never arrived. She phoned again - okay we'll send another letter - nothing.

On the Friday before the exam week I phoned the council and told them I needed the times and places. No we can't give it to you. We'll need to post another letter - yeah right.

When I explained that the last three hadn't arrived, she said I could come in to the office with proof of ID and they would then give me the information. I told her that wasn't possible because I was at work and that I needed the info now.

No we can't give it out because of child protection. I said hang on a second. Please go and speak to your boss. I am giving you his DOB, his address, the school he currently goes to. If I was up to no good why would I want to kidnap a child in front a school when there are 200 walking in to take an exam with their parents dropping them off and wishing them luck.

They gave me the info - mad mad world.

[TheHoff]

I love that you out-logicked them and had them change their policy on-the-fly!

[iAMB]

In U.S.A

Photograph taken in public....no permission needed.

Photograph taken in a private setting (school)..yes permission needed, especially since you a professional in the school system

End of story.



We adults are slowly killing the youth of our children

[111t]

Why would anyone bother photoshopping some random kids head from the internet (which is legitimate) onto a bit of child pornography (which is not)? Sounds like a myth that makes no actual sense.

And when we photographers self censor a completely harmless activity like sharing photos of children online, we are caving in to these raving lunatics that are paranoid about it.

I have several photos online of children that aren't my kids. In a few I don't have the faintest idea who the kids are. So what?

I only cautioned the OP because as a teacher she is taking the photos of her students in an official capacity and and lunatic parents in her class can cause her grief.

This exact thing happened in my town with an elementary principal.

Whether or not there is a legal basis is beside the point. In fact, i'm pretty sure for jounalistic or scholarly purposes it is in fact legal provided you're in public. (public schools are not 'in public') It's a sad commentary about the time we live in. At some schools i photograph they have switched from an 'opt out' system for whether the students can be photographed to an 'opt in' system. I can go into a room and take candid photos of only those that have returned parental consent forms. Before it was merely a matter of stepping into the room, winking at the teacher and then snap away. Now there is paperwork involved. This is just for a little memory book only to be distributed in that particular school.

I would be careful because whether it's illegal or legal, it could affect your job. People talk and that talk could twist a perfectly innocent activity in reality into something else in the minds of people who are being protective of their kids.

Also there are some folks with really valid concerns, for example people that have relocated from an abusive relationship want no possibility of a google search revealing where they live.

Just my $.02.

[geoff5093]

This exact thing happened in my town with an elementary principal.

Whether or not there is a legal basis is beside the point. In fact, i'm pretty sure for jounalistic or scholarly purposes it is in fact legal provided you're in public. (public schools are not 'in public') It's a sad commentary about the time we live in. At some schools i photograph they have switched from an 'opt out' system for whether the students can be photographed to an 'opt in' system. I can go into a room and take candid photos of only those that have returned parental consent forms. Before it was merely a matter of stepping into the room, winking at the teacher and then snap away. Now there is paperwork involved. This is just for a little memory book only to be distributed in that particular school.

I would be careful because whether it's illegal or legal, it could affect your job. People talk and that talk could twist a perfectly innocent activity in reality into something else in the minds of people who are being protective of their kids.

Also there are some folks with really valid concerns, for example people that have relocated from an abusive relationship want no possibility of a google search revealing where they live.

Just my $.02.
Very well said.