What is the current situation regarding putting photos of children on a club website / in a club newsletter? What about putting their names beside the photo - is that allowed? - or do you need permission of the parents? - or is it totally taboo?
Ideally I'd like to put in lots of photos of children and put their names next to the photos, but I don't want lots of hassle for doing it if I'm not allowed.
What's the best thing to do these days??
Child Protection - photos
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Child Protection - photos
The more I think, the more confused I get...
- Gillian
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:53 pm
- Location: occupying Dave's computer
Re: Child Protection - photos
Gillian wrote:What's the best thing to do these days??
black and white typewritten with no illustrations and nothing of any interest to read
-
Ed - diehard
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:11 pm
I think you need Mrs H who is currently on a plane as far as I know. As far as I'm aware the rules so far are only guidelines, and your club should have decided how much of them to adopt from BOF's policy,so I'd get in touch with them. If they say it's alright as long as there's permission/unnamed photos then you should be fine.
Not 100% sure though.
Not 100% sure though.
Will? We've got proper fire now!
-
Becks - god
- Posts: 2633
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:25 pm
- Location: East Preston Street Massif
not quite yet - leaving within the hour - very briefly you can't use any pictures of children at all with the permission of the child and adult carer - preferably in writing. If you do get this permission you should not identyfy the child in a caption - even with permission!! but you can allude to the child in the text (but not to the "pictured left" extent!). this is the BOF line as handed down from the Child Protection in sport Unit CPSU .
However I have obtained permission from the CPSU to caption pictures in my newsletter on the grounds that it is distributed only to club members - I actually produce two editions so non-club members don't captions (Yawn) because I want our juniors to be celebrated not buried. so depending on what you want to use them for don't go to BOF try a direct approach to the CPSU and see what they say - i'll let you have a contact when i come back. Any use of pictures with captions on the web page is pretty much verbotten
Good luck!
However I have obtained permission from the CPSU to caption pictures in my newsletter on the grounds that it is distributed only to club members - I actually produce two editions so non-club members don't captions (Yawn) because I want our juniors to be celebrated not buried. so depending on what you want to use them for don't go to BOF try a direct approach to the CPSU and see what they say - i'll let you have a contact when i come back. Any use of pictures with captions on the web page is pretty much verbotten
Good luck!
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
"can't", "not allowed" how annoyed I get when I hear this sort of message. Our, and I suspect everyone else's, local papers are full of captioned photos. We happily submit such photos of our juniors holding BOC/JK trophies etc. My daughter was chuffed to have her photo splashed across the cover of the last RC5 but not (yet?) being a major player I suspect most readers had no idea who this 'cover girl' was but perhaps would have liked to know.
Of course BOF etc will want to cover their backs but individuals can perform their own risk assessments and I suspect most will agree that the pros of publishing photographs (with permission) greatly outweigh the cons.
I'm not a lawyer of course, just someone who wants to get on with a life largely based on common sense. Unfortunately this seems to be getting harder and harder to achieve.
Neil Crickmore
Of course BOF etc will want to cover their backs but individuals can perform their own risk assessments and I suspect most will agree that the pros of publishing photographs (with permission) greatly outweigh the cons.
I'm not a lawyer of course, just someone who wants to get on with a life largely based on common sense. Unfortunately this seems to be getting harder and harder to achieve.
Neil Crickmore
- Guest
Brilliant - thanks very much.
I assume (hope) that the following should read "without" not "with":
"very briefly you can't use any pictures of children at all with the permission of the child and adult carer - preferably in writing." ??
I assume (hope) that the following should read "without" not "with":
"very briefly you can't use any pictures of children at all with the permission of the child and adult carer - preferably in writing." ??
The more I think, the more confused I get...
- Gillian
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:53 pm
- Location: occupying Dave's computer
Yes gillian sorry - very rushed walking out the door now - I'm in total agreement Neil - but Alex Ross is very fond of quoting the story of some local paper that got prosecuted when some kid identified inits stories got stalked or something - I've been trying to argue the case for ages now - but they say "if anything happens it'll be your fault" - now i've got what I want and if the parents have given their permission I say this means THEY are willing to take the risk.
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
I'm sure she meant "without" and not "with"
I recollect that Nopesport has been all round this one before earlier this year, and bald fact is that schools and local sport development units are increasingly only looking to work with clubs that are working towards NGB accreditation, based on Clubmark. Part of that is a child protection policy, and BOF, inline with other sports, have taken advice from the NSPCC children in sport unit . Mrs H has just described the guidance she received on this, as she produces a particularly colourful club magazine.
I've filled in two questionnaires from two different local authority sports development units recently, both of whom are checking if our club has got/is working towards accreditation.
Your club may well have already adopted the BOF child protection policy at an AGM.
I recollect that Nopesport has been all round this one before earlier this year, and bald fact is that schools and local sport development units are increasingly only looking to work with clubs that are working towards NGB accreditation, based on Clubmark. Part of that is a child protection policy, and BOF, inline with other sports, have taken advice from the NSPCC children in sport unit . Mrs H has just described the guidance she received on this, as she produces a particularly colourful club magazine.
I've filled in two questionnaires from two different local authority sports development units recently, both of whom are checking if our club has got/is working towards accreditation.
Your club may well have already adopted the BOF child protection policy at an AGM.
- ifititches
- blue
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:15 pm
- Location: just SW of greatest track junction in UK, I think.....
Your club may well have already adopted the BOF child protection policy at an AGM.
Oh aye?? Seeing as I chaired the last two club AGM's, I'm afraid I must have been asleep at that point. Woops.
The more I think, the more confused I get...
- Gillian
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:53 pm
- Location: occupying Dave's computer
know that feeling only too well! yesterday evening someone had to remind me that our club had done it last year, and e mail me a copy of the AGM minutes to prove it! I'm not the Chair, but I was at the AGM....
- ifititches
- blue
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:15 pm
- Location: just SW of greatest track junction in UK, I think.....
As a headteacher, I spend quite a lot of my life worrying about child protection.
There is no law to stop you publishing anything except "indecent" photos of children, nor to stop you writing anything you like about anyone you like, including children, provided you do not defame them. You do not need parents' permission or anyone else's. The question is, whether it is wise to do so.
The consequences of a child protection issue emerging in which the photos and identification in a club (or in my case school) publication were a part of the story could be very severe ("pervert stalked child after seeing photo and details in school magazine") - not in terms of the law (you did not do anything wrong, after all) but in terms of public perception - basically, the club or school would be finished. It is a bit like the Soham case - the man did nothing at all through his job as school caretaker - the girls came to his house - but the scandal is that he was employed in a school.
Similarly, publication without permission risks alienating or upsetting people, who you want to stay members of your club. For what it's worth my school follows the "names but no photos, photos but no names" policy - we photograph groups of children to illustrate articles, and we write articles about individual achievements, but we do not use photos of identified individuals.
There is no law to stop you publishing anything except "indecent" photos of children, nor to stop you writing anything you like about anyone you like, including children, provided you do not defame them. You do not need parents' permission or anyone else's. The question is, whether it is wise to do so.
The consequences of a child protection issue emerging in which the photos and identification in a club (or in my case school) publication were a part of the story could be very severe ("pervert stalked child after seeing photo and details in school magazine") - not in terms of the law (you did not do anything wrong, after all) but in terms of public perception - basically, the club or school would be finished. It is a bit like the Soham case - the man did nothing at all through his job as school caretaker - the girls came to his house - but the scandal is that he was employed in a school.
Similarly, publication without permission risks alienating or upsetting people, who you want to stay members of your club. For what it's worth my school follows the "names but no photos, photos but no names" policy - we photograph groups of children to illustrate articles, and we write articles about individual achievements, but we do not use photos of identified individuals.
-
chrisecurtis - red
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:34 pm
- Location: near Gatwick
Anonymous wrote:"can't", "not allowed" how annoyed I get when I hear this sort of message. Our, and I suspect everyone else's, local papers are full of captioned photos. We happily submit such photos of our juniors holding BOC/JK trophies etc. My daughter was chuffed to have her photo splashed across the cover of the last RC5 but not (yet?) being a major player I suspect most readers had no idea who this 'cover girl' was but perhaps would have liked to know.
Of course BOF etc will want to cover their backs but individuals can perform their own risk assessments and I suspect most will agree that the pros of publishing photographs (with permission) greatly outweigh the cons.
I'm not a lawyer of course, just someone who wants to get on with a life largely based on common sense. Unfortunately this seems to be getting harder and harder to achieve.
Neil Crickmore
who said Bry wasn't a major player, she was running for England!
and i didn't know who she was but worked it out by using the team list, so obviously if you have some knowledge but don't know, it makes little difference
-
rob f - yellow
- Posts: 2191
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:14 pm
- Location: Manchester
Hi Gillian
Sadly, I think BOF policy on child protection in this area sucks. What Mrs H. and others report here is correct, but it's totally OTT in one key respect. Many families (parents and children) like to see the names in print, and to have their photos identified. If that family has given permission for names and photos to be used, then frankly I don't see why BOF or the NSPCC should dictate otherwise. They are not responsible for the welfare of my child, I am.
The problem with BOF policy is that it is a blanket policy, applying the same to BOF publications (where permissions are more problematic) as to club publications (where it's a lot easier).
Having said that (and I could be wrong on this), I think the only issue will come if your club wants to achieve Clubmark, because the adoption of a club policy 'consistent with BOF policy' is required. As somebody pointed out this is becoming more important in some areas where local authorities are expecting to see it. However, it's currently a Sport England scheme, so I don't think it has much relevance to you.
However, having a policy is becoming important, but the question I've been most often asked is not 'do you have a child protection policy that is consistent with NGB etc.?', but 'do you have a child protection policy?'. Looking at other sports, one could develop a child protection policy that is somewhat more useful but took a slightly different line to BOF policy.
However, one thing I would strongly recommend: there is a big difference between publishing photos etc in a limited circulation club magazine and publishing them on the web. I'd definitely advise against the latter (especially with names), or differentiate on any permission form. As a parent I'd be more than happy for name and photo to go in club mag. Not so on the web, and I know other parents who feel the same.
Having said all this, whilst I tried to get my head round child protection, I'm no expert, so don't take any of this as gospel! Good luck.
Sadly, I think BOF policy on child protection in this area sucks. What Mrs H. and others report here is correct, but it's totally OTT in one key respect. Many families (parents and children) like to see the names in print, and to have their photos identified. If that family has given permission for names and photos to be used, then frankly I don't see why BOF or the NSPCC should dictate otherwise. They are not responsible for the welfare of my child, I am.
The problem with BOF policy is that it is a blanket policy, applying the same to BOF publications (where permissions are more problematic) as to club publications (where it's a lot easier).
Having said that (and I could be wrong on this), I think the only issue will come if your club wants to achieve Clubmark, because the adoption of a club policy 'consistent with BOF policy' is required. As somebody pointed out this is becoming more important in some areas where local authorities are expecting to see it. However, it's currently a Sport England scheme, so I don't think it has much relevance to you.
However, having a policy is becoming important, but the question I've been most often asked is not 'do you have a child protection policy that is consistent with NGB etc.?', but 'do you have a child protection policy?'. Looking at other sports, one could develop a child protection policy that is somewhat more useful but took a slightly different line to BOF policy.
However, one thing I would strongly recommend: there is a big difference between publishing photos etc in a limited circulation club magazine and publishing them on the web. I'd definitely advise against the latter (especially with names), or differentiate on any permission form. As a parent I'd be more than happy for name and photo to go in club mag. Not so on the web, and I know other parents who feel the same.
Having said all this, whilst I tried to get my head round child protection, I'm no expert, so don't take any of this as gospel! Good luck.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2