It was basically this topic which prompted me to join Nopesport over 18months ago - one of the most interesting things to come out of my struggles with the system was the fact that the worthies at the Protection for children in sport Unit gave me conflicting and more accommodating advice than BOF Central said they had been given by the same body and which they give out from the website. anyway - you know where i stand on the subject. the original debate is here - don't know how to make that a neat little link
http://www.nopesport.com/forum/viewtopi ... 20&start=0
Hiding Junior Race numbers
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
The thread to which Mrs H directed us includes some very pertinent comments about the age at which it should be young people, rather than their parents, who give permission for their identities to be revealed.
I have been pondering on how I would react if, say, a 15 year old orienteer, most commonly a comparatively mature young person, wanted their name published with their photograph, but their parents refused permission. I know such a possibility would at least cause me to raise an eyebrow of concern regarding parental over-protectiveness.
I haven't read all the thread but it does raise the question of "Gillick competence." Back in the 1980s Victoria Gillick went to Court to try and prevent the possibility of her daughters being given advice by health professionals, particularly in relation to sexual matters, without the parents knowledge. The High Court created the concept of "Gillick competence" which in essence meant that a doctor, if s/he judges the child to be 'Gillick competent', can only disclose information to the parent with the child's consent, regardless of Parental Responsibility.
If young people can be allowed to take decisions about matters such as personal health advice without their parents knowledge, surely preventing their names being published against their wishes is an unreasonable intrusion into their liberty, on a considerably less important issue.
As ever with such matters, the difficulties would be at which age do you draw the line, and who makes that decision in relation to which young person. That dilemma results in, what are for most young people, over-protective guidelines.
I have been pondering on how I would react if, say, a 15 year old orienteer, most commonly a comparatively mature young person, wanted their name published with their photograph, but their parents refused permission. I know such a possibility would at least cause me to raise an eyebrow of concern regarding parental over-protectiveness.
I haven't read all the thread but it does raise the question of "Gillick competence." Back in the 1980s Victoria Gillick went to Court to try and prevent the possibility of her daughters being given advice by health professionals, particularly in relation to sexual matters, without the parents knowledge. The High Court created the concept of "Gillick competence" which in essence meant that a doctor, if s/he judges the child to be 'Gillick competent', can only disclose information to the parent with the child's consent, regardless of Parental Responsibility.
If young people can be allowed to take decisions about matters such as personal health advice without their parents knowledge, surely preventing their names being published against their wishes is an unreasonable intrusion into their liberty, on a considerably less important issue.
As ever with such matters, the difficulties would be at which age do you draw the line, and who makes that decision in relation to which young person. That dilemma results in, what are for most young people, over-protective guidelines.
- seabird
- diehard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 am
- Location: Bradford
In fact I'd go so far as to say that if both parent and child consent to being identified in a picture - anywhere - it is an infringement of civil liberty for them to be denied i.e. it is probably against the law for BOF not to allow publication of identity if both parties would like it and the generic advice given by the Child Protection in Sport Unit (what a clumsy and ungrammatical name) does not have any backing in law.
Gillick Competence is another term for Common Sense - something the present government finds very threatening.
Gillick Competence is another term for Common Sense - something the present government finds very threatening.
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
Mrs H. wrote:In fact I'd go so far as to say that if both parent and child consent to being identified in a picture - anywhere - it is an infringement of civil liberty for them to be denied i.e. it is probably against the law for BOF not to allow publication of identity if both parties would like it and the generic advice given by the Child Protection in Sport Unit (what a clumsy and ungrammatical name) does not have any backing in law.
Gillick Competence is another term for Common Sense - something the present government finds very threatening.
I don't think that you have a right to be identified in a private publication, regardless of your wishes. You could ask for the picture to be removed (possibly) but if people could demand to be identified in any photo of them, crowd scenes in newspapers would be a mess.
-
PeterG - diehard
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
After the Jk photos were published on the photographers commercial website, I successfully had my picture removed, as is my right. Some might say No-one has the right to take anothers photo.
On another note of similar issue - should a commercial photographer be allowed to freely take ones photo, publish it on his or whatevere site, and then charge the person in the photo £7.50 for the privaledge of owning his own image which he never gave permission to be taken in the first place?!
I know of someone who has taken, and given them their image free of charge as a friendly gesture. Most gratefully receive it, as i would, but some are not at all happy complaining to whoeveer they feel like.
On another note of similar issue - should a commercial photographer be allowed to freely take ones photo, publish it on his or whatevere site, and then charge the person in the photo £7.50 for the privaledge of owning his own image which he never gave permission to be taken in the first place?!
I know of someone who has taken, and given them their image free of charge as a friendly gesture. Most gratefully receive it, as i would, but some are not at all happy complaining to whoeveer they feel like.
- yt1
- string
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:23 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Some random website of dubious reliability wrote:In the UK the simple rule is that 'in public your face is public' BUT there are some important provisos...
You mustn't take pictures in the 'precincts of the law courts'. That's a slippery one because no-one's ever come out and said just what that means.
There used to be a byelaw against taking pictures on the railways without permission (but you can on the tube).
There's some debate whether you're allowed to take pictures in the Royal Parks but people take pictures in Hyde Park every day and I've not heard of anyone being arrested yet.
You mustn't take pictures if a policeman tells you not to. Under our Byzantine legal system he can get you for 'Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace'. On the other hand, policeman don't arrest working press photographers very often, perhaps because they know they'll get sued for harrasment.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There used to be a fascinating book 'The Law for Photographers' which went into this in quite a lot of detail. You sometimes see it in second hand bookshops.
I'm not quite sure how this applies to photography at an orienteering event but I'm pretty sure that in all events the copyright for the photograph lies with the photographer. I'm pretty sure if a photographer agrees to take a photo of you down from their website they are doing so because of good will rather than legal reasons (unless the photo breaks the law in other ways such as child pornography).
-
PeterG - diehard
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
fair point gareth, and anyway it probably doesn't matter their name, the paedophile would most likely just turn up and stalk any child
-
rob f - yellow
- Posts: 2191
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:14 pm
- Location: Manchester
awk wrote:But it might get quite interesting where the parent, child and editor/publisher all want to publish names etc., but BOF are effectively saying you can't.
Not as I read it they aren't.
Pretty much all the BOF documentation makes careful use of "should" and "shall". "Shall not" means you jolly well cant, and you are breaking the rules if you do. "Should not" means you can, but only if you have a good reason.
Publishing names is a "should not". What it effectively means is that if you do break their policy, and something bad happens, its your problem to explain why and face the consequences, not BOF's.
Graeme
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Can anyone explain to me why we need to go to such lengths to protect children's identites but The Times can publish a picture of 1 year girl and her name on the front page?
'If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, then Triathlon must have taken Him completely by surprise.' P.Z. Pearce
-
Lil' God'rs - orange
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:44 pm
- Location: The country retreat
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 197 guests