You would be suprised to find how many places ban photography, schools are the worst for it. I went into St Stephens shopping centre in Hull as part of a photography stroll around Hull one day and as I got my camera out a security guard (very politely) informed me that the centres policy on photography prevented me from taking any pictures when there were people inside as you need permission from individuals to photograph them (not sure whether this is policy or law TBH).

I understand fully that there has to be protection against misuse of photos where kids are concerned, but in my case I was just taking photos of my grandson playing a game of rugby.

Your right. My big lens would take a good shot of a pimple on someones nose from a good distance. The irony is that every Thursday in the local paper there is a pull out called 'hot shots' and is mainly kids RL and football.

No need to go as far as your local paper, this very thread has many shots of kids playing RL - do the takers have permission from every kid in the image? Are we all pervs for looking at them?

I think these school policies of barring video and photo activity at school plays, sports days etc are about as stupid and pointless a thing as you could think of. It is based on people who are barely conscious having ridiculous notions put in their heads by the terminally thick. What on earth is the evil that they presumably "think" they are guarding against?

ironically most school premises are extensively covered by CCTV. By the same token, shouldn't security cameras be switched off?

The default policy should be that if you are so numb of skull that you object to your child being potentially imaged in normal situations - then bar your child from that activity.

I take photographs every week of my grandson playing football in an FA Under 11s league.

At first I was a tad reluctant because of the very issues that are highlighted in this thread. However, many parents of the other kids had seen some samples of my stuff and encouraged me to go ahead. The team manager approached the local FA and was told that as far as they were concerned photography was to be encouraged as much as possible. The same FA have since used my photos on their website and as their Facebook profile picture.

My pictures are posted on Facebook and/or Flickr. They are not protected in any way and copyright is specifically waived for any non-commercial use for anyone connected with the clubs involved.

As a courtesy, I always approach the opposition coaches and ask their permission. It is possible that some children cannot have their photographs taken for their own safety (those with certain custody issues for example). I have never been refused permission by any of the coaches and they are happy to receive and share links to the pictures. I always try to give all the players whether opposition or my own club a fair share of attention.

The problems are real for would-be photographers who are the victims of intolerance and intimidation but the tide is turning.

As I understand the law on this matter, no-one has a right to privacy when in a public place.

The case you cite, however, involves private properly and is not therefore a public place. The owners are entitled to impose terms and conditions and unfortunately the restriction of photography in ubiquitous. However, because just about every mobile phone incorporates a camera (our lass is getting a Samsung Galaxy S4 which has a 13 megabyte camera - 13 fekkin' megabytes! - my previous DSLR only had 12) photography restrictions will become increasing difficult to enforce.

Bought myself a Canon 1100d, here are a few of my daughter on my first trip out with it (Given the past few posts, no pervs please!)

rlrl
rlIMG_0113rl by rlBillinge Lumprl, on Flickr

rlrl
rlIMG_0162rl by rlBillinge Lumprl, on Flickr

rlrl
rlIMG_0197rl by rlBillinge Lumprl, on Flickr

A 12mp DSLR will be a far superior camera than a 13mp phone due to sensor size.

True. I haven't used it yet but the Samsung blurb boasts that the camera phone is free from shutter-lag. That is something I will (literally) have to see to believe. Incidentally I see my earlier posts referred to "megabytes" when of course I meant megapixels.

I'm currently using a full-frame DSLR - a Nikon D600 - which has 24 megapixels and it's like a brand new photographic experience. It's not so much the number of pixels but the low-light capability which is truly awesome.

I used to baulk at going over ISO800 with earlier cameras but now ISO1600 is practically noise-free and at ISO3200 there is noise present but it's perfectly acceptable. I'd rather have a (slightly) noisy shot than no shot at all.

Plus the lens on a phone will be nowhere near as good.


Lovely.
Bloody lovely.

As a Pentax user I would have to change makers to get a full frame camera, Pentax do some excellent models but you either have the SLR range with standard sensor or jump to the 645D with its monster 44x33mm 40 mp sensor (at £6k ).

I have tried other makes over the years, but have always drifted back to Pentax.

Never mind lens quality.

My old Fuji S602Z (3MP) is still 10x better than the 8MP on my Galaxy SII, they're fine for snaps/portrait shots but don't come close aside from speed of access

My brother coaches at a local rugby union club, anything from the U8's to U12's and a few years ago he dragged me in to organise their web site which had been neglected.

At one of the coaches/managers meetings the issue of photgraphs on the web was raised, each team from U8 to U18 all wanted their own gallery of matchday photos posting online, each one had at least one parent who was willing to provide photos on a regular basis, the question of legality of publishing the photos was raised especially for the junior age groups and of the sensitivity that some parents of the home and visiting teams feel about having their childrens images used online.

Other than the usual "PC rubbish" response (which was the majority) we got some feedback from a solicitor and our solution was to inform all parents as part of the player registration process that photos would be published online (more than anything the kids love to see themselves) but that identities would not be used - we don't hide individuals faces, don't edit anything and don't try and avoid close ups (which some other clubs do), but there are no captions to each gallery other than the date and the name of the opposition team.

To date (over five years) there have been no objections either at the matches or of the galleries on the web site.

In general, the fuss that suddenly sprang up out of nowhere about kids being imaged in school plays, sports days, games etc. I have always found very strange.

The impression to me was that people had suddenly started to hear widespread stories about paedos, child porn and abuse of children, and somehow, suddenly, loads of adults seemed to just assume there is a direct link between those evils, and relatives of other children in the same school potentially having images of our Johnny as a shepherd, or our Jane as Mary.

Instead of being summarily dismissed, schools quickly got on board, yet I have not seen any articulated REASONABLE objection to a parent being allowed to take such images at a school event. What are they? Does anyone on here feel that way? If so, why? Do you know anyone in that position? If so, what exactly is it that they are worried about?

Do they actually fear that one of the invited audience (which will never contain outsiders) may well be a paedo as well as a relative? Is that it?

If so, then what exactly are the objectors seeking to achieve?

The objections soon spread to sports days and other outdoor events, and now we have discussions like here about junior rugby teams. What is the fear here? That children engaging in outdoor activities are likely to be wearing sports gear and that somehow we must all be banned from taking pictures of what will be a great day for our kids/grandkids, just to eliminate the somewhat remote possibility that somewhere among the speccies, there's a paedo, and while the children are still fully dressed, well, a paedo may be turned on, and so we cant take the risk of the paedo having images to take away? Is that it?

Well then, when their kids are playing out all evening every summer, how do these tortured individuals allow that to happen? There is a whole world out there, and it is at least equally possibly that there is a paedo behind every bush or pair of curtains, snapping away. If your fear of a paedo taking an image is that great - how can you ever justify allowing your child outdoors at all?

What do you do if on holiday - say on the beach. Hundreds of cameras and camera phones packed in every location, and your kids wearing swimming costumes. Some very young kids wearing nothing at all.

If you could speak to the objectors about this inconsistent behaviour, what would they say? They don't want to risk a relative of a child at school being a paedo and having an image including their child, in a state of dress, but don't give a monkeys whether paedos are given free rein to take as many images as they want during the overwhelming majority of the rest of the child's life, especially outdoor life?

All kids, especially younger ones, get invited to birthday parties all the time. Loads of photos are taken. Yet how does objector parent cope with that? They won't even be AT the party, doesn't their over-worried brain scream at them that those images may fall into paedo hands?

I don't get it. If someone is phobic about these paedo possibilities, well, I suppose it's your kid, you make the rules, but how then can you ever let the child be exposed to any outside places, where the opportunities for paedo imaging are almost infinite? Isn't this essentially a totally illogical and absurd worry?

During our discussions over the inclusion of photos on the RU club web site the only reasonable, potential, issue that heard expressed was that if a photo of, say, an eight year old boy was shown with a caption that named him, then, potentially, an adult with an intention to abduct a child could use that information to trick his way past any questioning adults and also fool the child into thinking that he must know him as the adult knows his name.

A bit far fetched I agree, but child abductors (miniscule in numbers) have feigned friendship and family knowledge to target children in the past - it was a reasonable request to not caption any photograph I thought.

Other than that its the most favourite bit of the web site for the hundreds of 8 to 18 year olds who are members at the club especially the younger ones who check the updates all the time to see if they are featured in any of the photos (we have one mother who is very skilled at taking action photos and now does several age groups), I'd go so far as to say most of the kids wouldn't look at the club web site if the photo galleries weren't there and that they engender a club comradeship amongst the members, its very important to the club.