Legal Question, Little League

makman · May 12, 2004

Fourthly, the pictures are not only available for the parents to purchase, anyone can purchase them, including Joe Pedophile. I have been told that it is necessary to get a release to sell identifiable photos such as these to a third party, otherwise the "model" has the right to sue for compensation. It even says this in the website noted above:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Finally, what happened was that I received an email to look at his website from another parent. I saw photographs of many kids, mine included. I flew off the handle thinking that anyone (read pervert) could buy these photos, and find these kids. Hey, these are kids, a bunch of them, 8-10 year old boys. It is almost like a menu to lots of people around here. I don't want to be compensated for the sale of my kids photos to others. I think they are worth a million bucks, but hey, I might be biased. It's that I don't want anyone else (again read pervert) to be able to see and buy them and then think of god knows what about any of these kids while holding the photos in their hand.

I have already apologized to the photographer in question. Like I told him, I think it would have been more appropriate to have a password protected site, and give the parents a letter with the website and password, or something similar. Accomplishes the same thing, less risky. Had he done this, I would have probably emailed him asking about his equipment and EXIF data instead, and maybe purchased some photos. They are really very good. I am not the only one who thinks passwords are a good idea. This poster mentioned them as if it was routine when responding to a marketing question:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=8739714

Maybe I am being paranoid, but with all the bad stuff happening to kids these days, I think it is better to be safe, especially if there is an easy way to do so that would not have harmed the photographer or his sales.

Mitch

HoldenMan · May 13, 2004

You are being paranoid

But I suppose that's your job.

I fully support your request to have the child's photos taken off the site. Personally I never post photos of children on the internet because so far the only child photos have been from athletics, and have been parents I know, so I don't want to cause problems with them if they take offence to it.

Having said that I think we all agree that you had no right to request the other photos to be removed as that is up to the other parents. Realistically the chances of anything happening as a result of those photos are incredibly slim, and most parents thus won't have a problem with the photos, so really it's up to them. Suggest, perhaps, but I don't think request.

That's my thoughts

And by the way, I'm not a parent, but I think i've looked at everything objectively and taken into account parent bias, so i don't think my parental stance is relevant anyway

eyevibe · May 13, 2004

I guess there is always is two sides to a story! I'm glad to see we got to see both and hopefully both parties can work out their concern. I am also glad to see so many people supporting the parent, unlike another thread about street photographers and parental concern. I think parents and photographers can co-exist with a little respect on both sides.

makman said:
Fourthly, the pictures are not only available for the parents to
purchase, anyone can purchase them, including Joe Pedophile. I have
been told that it is necessary to get a release to sell
identifiable photos such as these to a third party, otherwise the
"model" has the right to sue for compensation. It even says this in
the website noted above:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Finally, what happened was that I received an email to look at his
website from another parent. I saw photographs of many kids, mine
included. I flew off the handle thinking that anyone (read pervert)
could buy these photos, and find these kids. Hey, these are kids, a
bunch of them, 8-10 year old boys. It is almost like a menu to lots
of people around here. I don't want to be compensated for the sale
of my kids photos to others. I think they are worth a million
bucks, but hey, I might be biased. It's that I don't want anyone
else (again read pervert) to be able to see and buy them and then
think of god knows what about any of these kids while holding the
photos in their hand.

I have already apologized to the photographer in question. Like I
told him, I think it would have been more appropriate to have a
password protected site, and give the parents a letter with the
website and password, or something similar. Accomplishes the same
thing, less risky. Had he done this, I would have probably emailed
him asking about his equipment and EXIF data instead, and maybe
purchased some photos. They are really very good. I am not the only
one who thinks passwords are a good idea. This poster mentioned
them as if it was routine when responding to a marketing question:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=8739714

Maybe I am being paranoid, but with all the bad stuff happening to
kids these days, I think it is better to be safe, especially if
there is an easy way to do so that would not have harmed the
photographer or his sales.

Mitch

--
m.munoz

motofoto · May 13, 2004

makman said:
Maybe I am being paranoid

you're being a reasonable parent and acting in accordance with current accepted norms for publishing pictures of children, regardless of the activity or setting.

my son's school gets the individual parent's signatures on a release form before placing a students photograph on the school website ... his soccer association will not permit unauthorized photography of players ... period.

mike

makman · May 13, 2004

At the time that I requested that all the photos be removed, I was under the mistaken impression that there was some law against posting kids photos without parental consent. I actually asked him to remove the photos unless he had releases from the parents and the league, not all the photos.

I know now that is incorrect. I have since written him another brief letter, basically saying that I will worry about my kids, and the other parents can worry about their kids.

Like I said, taking, and selling the photos is fine by me, but a private site would be more appropriate. I have nothing against him nor what he is doing. It was a parental protective response!

Mitch

HoldenMan said:
Having said that I think we all agree that you had no right to
request the other photos to be removed as that is up to the other
parents. Realistically the chances of anything happening as a
result of those photos are incredibly slim, and most parents thus
won't have a problem with the photos, so really it's up to them.
Suggest, perhaps, but I don't think request.

That's my thoughts

And by the way, I'm not a parent, but I think i've looked at
everything objectively and taken into account parent bias, so i
don't think my parental stance is relevant anyway

makman · May 13, 2004

It was actually the photographer that pointed me to this thread.

I am glad to see so many people agreeing with what I said about my kids pictures. As I said in another reply above, I will worry about my kids, and the other parents can worry about theirs.

Mitch

motofoto said:
makman said:

Maybe I am being paranoid

Click to expand...

you're being a reasonable parent and acting in accordance with
current accepted norms for publishing pictures of children,
regardless of the activity or setting.

my son's school gets the individual parent's signatures on a
release form before placing a students photograph on the school
website ... his soccer association will not permit unauthorized
photography of players ... period.

mike

makman · May 13, 2004

As far as I am concerned, it has been worked out to my satisfaction. I have no hard feelings against the photogragher. I am a budding amateur, and would rather talk to him and learn from him than argue with him.

Mitch

eyevibe said:
makman said:

Fourthly, the pictures are not only available for the parents to
purchase, anyone can purchase them, including Joe Pedophile. I have
been told that it is necessary to get a release to sell
identifiable photos such as these to a third party, otherwise the
"model" has the right to sue for compensation. It even says this in
the website noted above:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Finally, what happened was that I received an email to look at his
website from another parent. I saw photographs of many kids, mine
included. I flew off the handle thinking that anyone (read pervert)
could buy these photos, and find these kids. Hey, these are kids, a
bunch of them, 8-10 year old boys. It is almost like a menu to lots
of people around here. I don't want to be compensated for the sale
of my kids photos to others. I think they are worth a million
bucks, but hey, I might be biased. It's that I don't want anyone
else (again read pervert) to be able to see and buy them and then
think of god knows what about any of these kids while holding the
photos in their hand.

I have already apologized to the photographer in question. Like I
told him, I think it would have been more appropriate to have a
password protected site, and give the parents a letter with the
website and password, or something similar. Accomplishes the same
thing, less risky. Had he done this, I would have probably emailed
him asking about his equipment and EXIF data instead, and maybe
purchased some photos. They are really very good. I am not the only
one who thinks passwords are a good idea. This poster mentioned
them as if it was routine when responding to a marketing question:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=8739714

Maybe I am being paranoid, but with all the bad stuff happening to
kids these days, I think it is better to be safe, especially if
there is an easy way to do so that would not have harmed the
photographer or his sales.

Mitch

Click to expand...

--
m.munoz

eyevibe · May 13, 2004

Both parties I think acted very responsibly. You both should be comended and I think a private website is an awesome idea! For the record Makman, you have every right to be concerned for you child, never let anyone tell you differently, like some would on this board.

makman said:
I am glad to see so many people agreeing with what I said about my
kids pictures. As I said in another reply above, I will worry
about my kids, and the other parents can worry about theirs.

Mitch

motofoto said:

makman said:

Maybe I am being paranoid

Click to expand...

you're being a reasonable parent and acting in accordance with
current accepted norms for publishing pictures of children,
regardless of the activity or setting.

my son's school gets the individual parent's signatures on a
release form before placing a students photograph on the school
website ... his soccer association will not permit unauthorized
photography of players ... period.

mike

Click to expand...

--
m.munoz

Importer · May 13, 2004

Hello Mitch ~

First let me say that I am a parent of three kids and probably one of the most over-protective fathers in the world. I once beat up my kids bicycle when whe was learning to ride, falling off and slicing the heck out of her knee. Not very rational. Now I also should point out that part of my total income is gained from shooting youth sports and selling them on site and on-line.

My take is that the world is a very dangerous place and predators do exist who target children. I'd like to see all the b##trds in prision or worse. It's a good thing that I'm not a judge. But I also try to find a balance in life where I'm not rasing my children to be paranoid and fearful.

What are the odds that some predator is using a unadvertised photo site to pick out his next victim? Can it happen? Absolutely, but I don't think it's likely. I try to balance this to where the kids and parents can get some memorable shots of their child playing a game they love and most parents agree with me.

I have had parents ask me to remove their children from the site and I immediately removed them. But I have had by far more parents specifically ask me if I have shot their son/daughter, and if not, please make sure you get them in a couple of pictures. My worst problem seems to be when I show up for the games, I tend to get bombarded with parents requests for a certain shot - "Billy diving for the ball" etc. which is tough to do as the games go as the games go and Billy may not even get a chance to get the ball. Also, it's kind of funny but when the kids notice me, they start going in to really dramatic action poses. It cracks me up.

My point being that while I respect everyones opinion, IMHO the balance between danger and the fond memories tilts toward the memories.

makman said:
I am glad to see so many people agreeing with what I said about my
kids pictures. As I said in another reply above, I will worry
about my kids, and the other parents can worry about theirs.

Mitch

motofoto said:

makman said:

Maybe I am being paranoid

Click to expand...

you're being a reasonable parent and acting in accordance with
current accepted norms for publishing pictures of children,
regardless of the activity or setting.

my son's school gets the individual parent's signatures on a
release form before placing a students photograph on the school
website ... his soccer association will not permit unauthorized
photography of players ... period.

mike

Click to expand...

--
Don't blame me. I just work here!
http://www.pbase.com/importer

makman · May 13, 2004

I have no disagreement with getting the memories. I just have a problem with posting them on an unsecure website. I just found out this morning that the photographer put his card on the cars in the parking lot, with the website on the card. Now let me show you his take on the park where the kids were playing, from an email he sent me:

"You should be more worried about the individuals that lurk in the park of which K1 is part of. I wouldn't mind betting that many of the transients that hang around there are sex offenders...I have observed some of them studying our children. "

What is to stop one of these transients from taking one of those cards?

A secure website with a letter to the parents with a password removes most of the risk and potential grief.

Mitch

Importer said:
First let me say that I am a parent of three kids and probably one
of the most over-protective fathers in the world. I once beat up my
kids bicycle when whe was learning to ride, falling off and slicing
the heck out of her knee. Not very rational. Now I also should
point out that part of my total income is gained from shooting
youth sports and selling them on site and on-line.

My take is that the world is a very dangerous place and predators
do exist who target children. I'd like to see all the b##trds in
prision or worse. It's a good thing that I'm not a judge. But I
also try to find a balance in life where I'm not rasing my children
to be paranoid and fearful.

What are the odds that some predator is using a unadvertised photo
site to pick out his next victim? Can it happen? Absolutely, but I
don't think it's likely. I try to balance this to where the kids
and parents can get some memorable shots of their child playing a
game they love and most parents agree with me.

I have had parents ask me to remove their children from the site
and I immediately removed them. But I have had by far more parents
specifically ask me if I have shot their son/daughter, and if not,
please make sure you get them in a couple of pictures. My worst
problem seems to be when I show up for the games, I tend to get
bombarded with parents requests for a certain shot - "Billy diving
for the ball" etc. which is tough to do as the games go as the
games go and Billy may not even get a chance to get the ball. Also,
it's kind of funny but when the kids notice me, they start going in
to really dramatic action poses. It cracks me up.

My point being that while I respect everyones opinion, IMHO the
balance between danger and the fond memories tilts toward the
memories.

makman said:

I am glad to see so many people agreeing with what I said about my
kids pictures. As I said in another reply above, I will worry
about my kids, and the other parents can worry about theirs.

Mitch

motofoto said:

makman said:

Maybe I am being paranoid

Click to expand...

you're being a reasonable parent and acting in accordance with
current accepted norms for publishing pictures of children,
regardless of the activity or setting.

my son's school gets the individual parent's signatures on a
release form before placing a students photograph on the school
website ... his soccer association will not permit unauthorized
photography of players ... period.

mike

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Don't blame me. I just work here!
http://www.pbase.com/importer

dannv · May 13, 2004

first off, its someone else's child. that should carry A LOT of weight regardless of the situation.

to your question, what is more personal than your face? they don't need your name and address to invade your privacy. once that photo is on the net, anyone can take it and deface it in any way they choose -- and then republish it in a forum with a very wide audience.

more specifically, if the site says "here's the pictures i took at the Rochester Little League park" then a predator could easily find a specific child they took an interest in.

paranoia isn't just about likelihood. its also about opportunity and damage potential. many people trust to the anonymity of the net simply because its big. if a parent chooses not to place their trust in such a vague barrier, that should be their choice. ...dav
--
don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you

dannv · May 13, 2004

HoldenMan said:
And by the way, I'm not a parent, but I think i've looked at
everything objectively and taken into account parent bias, so i
don't think my parental stance is relevant anyway

not to dispute your position, but i did want to point out: a parent's priority is to be protective. objective is way down the list...dav
--
don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you

devenh · May 13, 2004

I manage a team and sports photo web site that combined have several thousand youth sports photos online. As a general rule, we do not post the last names of minors and in most cases do not post names at all (although posting names does make it easier to search a site for a particular picture). I have never had a request to remove a photo, but of course would honor such a request ASAP if I ever received one.

Seems like what we're talking about here is risk of something bad happening if a child's photo is posted.

The issue is perceived risk versus actual risk. Actual risk is based on data, perceived risk based on what we feel or think which is often influenced by what we see in the media. Child abductions and airplane crashes make the headlines, so there is a perception that they are a real problem. While these incidents are very serious, they simply don't happen enough to worry about.

My view on the 'internet stalker' risk is that it is orders of magnitudes smaller than the risk my kids take when they ride their bikes to school (134 deaths, 315000 injuries in 2001 according to http://us.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/05/11/bike.helmets.reut/ ). So while a car may be a statistically safer way to get to school, I feel the independence and self reliance they learn from riding is worth the risk.

So my feeling is that a parent's time would be better spent making sure their child is wearing a helmet while bicycling, roller blading, or on a scooter (all of which takes a great deal of effort as anyone with a teenager knows) than worring about an internet photo.

Deven

motofoto · May 13, 2004

makman said:
I just found out
this morning that the photographer put his card on the cars in the
parking lot, with the website on the card.

this type of garbage bucket marketing is putting a few dollars above the privacy and safety of innocent children.

as a professional photographer myself, I'm embarassed that this guy even owns a camera.

mike

Importer · May 13, 2004

How does a photo risk the "safety of innocent children" any more than just being seen in public?

motofoto said:
makman said:

I just found out
this morning that the photographer put his card on the cars in the
parking lot, with the website on the card.

Click to expand...

this type of garbage bucket marketing is putting a few dollars
above the privacy and safety of innocent children.

as a professional photographer myself, I'm embarassed that this guy
even owns a camera.

mike

--
Don't blame me. I just work here!
http://www.pbase.com/importer

makman · May 13, 2004

Truthfully, I think it was an innocent mistake.

Maybe I am naive, and I am the one who complained to begin with, but I just think that he did not think this through very well.

Mitch

motofoto said:
makman said:

I just found out
this morning that the photographer put his card on the cars in the
parking lot, with the website on the card.

Click to expand...

this type of garbage bucket marketing is putting a few dollars
above the privacy and safety of innocent children.

as a professional photographer myself, I'm embarassed that this guy
even owns a camera.

mike

eyevibe · May 13, 2004

devenh said:
So my feeling is that a parent's time would be better spent making
sure their child is wearing a helmet while bicycling, roller
blading, or on a scooter (all of which takes a great deal of effort
as anyone with a teenager knows) than worring about an internet
photo.

Good point, but can't a parent do both?
--
m.munoz

Importer · May 13, 2004

Agree that the parent carries all the weight in decisions regarding their child.

Disagree that once the photo is on the net anyone can deface it in anyway. I'm not selling images, I'm selling prints and right click doesn't work. I think this entire thread is losing balance.

We can't live in a state of fear based on a very small minoirty of sicko's that stalk people. Bad things happen but let's keep in in perspective.

dannv said:
first off, its someone else's child. that should carry A LOT of
weight regardless of the situation.

to your question, what is more personal than your face? they don't
need your name and address to invade your privacy. once that photo
is on the net, anyone can take it and deface it in any way they
choose -- and then republish it in a forum with a very wide
audience.

more specifically, if the site says "here's the pictures i took at
the Rochester Little League park" then a predator could easily find
a specific child they took an interest in.

paranoia isn't just about likelihood. its also about opportunity
and damage potential. many people trust to the anonymity of the
net simply because its big. if a parent chooses not to place their
trust in such a vague barrier, that should be their choice. ...dav
--
don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you

--
Don't blame me. I just work here!
http://www.pbase.com/importer

Importer · May 13, 2004

Just trying to gain some perspective...

How about school year books? Newspapers?

Does every published photo put someone at risk?

Does this arguement pertain just to children or also include adults?

devenh · May 13, 2004

eyevibe said:
Good point, but can't a parent do both?

Sure, but every parent needs to draw the line as they see fit.

My view is (and I am not advocating this) that being too protective has a risk too. I see parents who walk their child(ren) to school every day in a very, very safe neighborhood. When the child goes to middle school one mile away they can't find their way by bike because they've never been allowed to go out and explore alone.

Since this is a photography forum, not a parenting forum, I won't go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Deven

Legal Question, Little League

Leading Member

Senior Member

Active member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Active member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Active member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts