Photography ban on high school cheerleaders?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/05/2004 03:26:36 PM · #3

It probably depends on a number of factors...if it's a practice and such where they are outside, they have no expectation of privacy. There's generally not anything that can be done to stop you. They can ask you to not be on their property and make it harder for you to take a pic, but it's a paparazzi type thing. Expectation of privacy plays a big part in this kind of thing. Celebs have a bit more control, they do something like trademark their images or can argue their image is part of their livelihood etc. and as such they should be paid when appearing but for the rest of us, if you go out in public and someone takes a picture of you, it seems like it's a "too bad". i.e. you have no ownership of photons bouncing off of you going into public space.

I'm not a lawyer though so feel free to ignore me.
Related to this, I seem to remember a post or a link somewhere on this site that pointed at a little summary from someone supposedly a lawyer outlining what rights a photographer has and a person has etc. I sort of gathered that they can say, kick you out of a venue for taking a picture, but once you've snapped it, they have no legal entitlement to your film/picture. Which makes sense to me, but they have no legal requirement to let you hang around and take more for the most part either. Although I wonder what the legal ramifications are as far as tax doller supported things kicking tax payers out. Especially if you aren't doing anything disruptive.

Message edited by author 2004-12-05 15:30:59.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

12/05/2004 04:03:19 PM · #4

I read an article that said...during cheeerleader practices many photographers were up there taking pictures of the girls for the sole reason of putting them on the net.

I say get rid of them during practice.....

They can still try to take shots during the game...but it will be a bit harder.

Its a sad deal....perverts everywhere. I dont think we should ban cheerleaders though, or make them dress in pants.

I really dont know what the answer is......

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

12/05/2004 05:28:52 PM · #5

Things here in Australia are typically far more laid back than the US.

However, there was a letter to an editor in an Aussie photo mag that shows that things here are moving in a ridiculous fashion .....

A grandfather was at a local uner 11's soccer game to watch his grandson. He had his camera, a point and shoot, with him. The referee saw him with the camera and informed him that although his granson was playing, unless he put away the camera he (referee)would stop the game. His reason ..... people take photos of children for child porn sites on the internet.

I agree with stopping photos under lots of conditions .... but not being able to take photos of your own grandchild playing soccer??? No other parent had complained, it was simply the referee. To me that is just stupid, and thankfully it is not the norm here, just one power hungry referee by the sound of it.

The photographer had the legal right, as it was not private land, to continue to take the photos if he so wished, the referee could not actually stop him at all ..... but he did have power over the game and could stop that, which put the photographer in an impossible situation.

Not like the cheerleader issue I admit, as those photos are sought after by the porn crowd, but sadly I think things are going to get more and more ridiculous.

Yes, do everything to protect people.... but a little common sense does not go amiss.

Message edited by author 2004-12-05 17:30:28.

cbeller

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/05/2004 05:36:47 PM · #6

what needs to be done, is cracking down on the illegal porn sites and the people that actually supply the photos. Restricting the normal everyday photographer is doing nothing to protect kids, or anyone else for that matter.

It's unfortunate to hear that people in other countries are starting to become as paranoid and uptight as people here in the states.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/05/2004 05:50:31 PM · #7

wow -- I had no idea things like this were going on...I'll have to remember to never take photos of girl's sports -- kinda sad, but I'd feel much too weird.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

12/05/2004 07:33:08 PM · #8

This is a very disturbing trend for several reasons. First, because children are being exploited by a few low lifes, and second, because the rest of us are being lumped in with the creeps. All this because orgs like the ACLU defends those amoral jerks and prevents meaningful legislation to curb pornography on the net. That same ACLU will defend the perverts 1st amendment 'rights'to the extreme but prosecute Christians for exercising those same rights; hypocrisy in its worst possible form.
IMO, the ACLU is the worst catastrophy to ever strike mankind.

debitipton

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II

12/05/2004 07:43:41 PM · #9

Originally posted by EddyG:

Does anybody have any information on photography of high school cheerleaders / cheerleading competitions being banned?

When my son was dating a cheerleader I went to her competition with camera in hand. No one questioned me. I also took quite a few photos during games and at practices -- but then I look like somebody's mother.

colema19

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

12/05/2004 10:02:57 PM · #10

Originally posted by ElGordo:

All this because orgs like the ACLU defends those amoral jerks and prevents meaningful legislation to curb pornography on the net. That same ACLU will defend the perverts 1st amendment 'rights'to the extreme but prosecute Christians for exercising those same rights; hypocrisy in its worst possible form.
IMO, the ACLU is the worst catastrophy to ever strike mankind.

Wow...tell us how you really feel. And if you really believe that, I don't think you really see the big picture of what the ACLU's doing. It's rights for everyone, including the perverts and the creeps or it's not a freedom. Read Animal Farm sometime.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

12/05/2004 10:45:37 PM · #11

Originally posted by colema19:

Originally posted by ElGordo:
All this because orgs like the ACLU defends those amoral jerks and prevents meaningful legislation to curb pornography on the net. That same ACLU will defend the perverts 1st amendment 'rights'to the extreme but prosecute Christians for exercising those same rights; hypocrisy in its worst possible form.
IMO, the ACLU is the worst catastrophy to ever strike mankind.

Wow...tell us how you really feel. And if you really believe that, I don't think you really see the big picture of what the ACLU's doing. It's rights for everyone, including the perverts and the creeps or it's not a freedom. Read Animal Farm sometime.

The problem is that it is rights only for the perverse and amoral. All others need not apply.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/05/2004 11:00:06 PM · #12

Originally posted by ElGordo:

The problem is that it is rights only for the perverse and amoral. All others need not apply.

I believe they are defending my rights and I fit neither of those categories ...

Message edited by author 2004-12-05 23:00:35.

graphicfunk

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/05/2004 11:42:47 PM · #13

Not to turn this into a rant but these are my naive observations on the ACLU.

The ACLU is anti-god and at the opposite extreme of the fanatical believer. Both extremes are bad. Neither proposition can be proved.
If there are christian fundamentalist then the ACLU is the secular fundamentalist.

An organization that proceeds to eradicate God from all government, money, etc., will have to throw overboard all the founding fathers, and all the so called misled souls such as Michael Angelo, Bach, Mozart, well the list does not end. I want no identification with such an organization.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/06/2004 01:05:21 AM · #14

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Well said...and I`m not even american...

KDO

Canon EOS-700D Rebel T5i

12/06/2004 01:18:13 AM · #15

I think that we need to be very cautious when using photos of children. I know that there are a number of issues that are reason for protecting the image of a child, and they fall in a spectrum with child porn being the most horrific. I am very cautious and get a parental release before I use the image of a child. That is one reason I chose an 18 year old as the subject for my authority challenge. I wanted a person who knew what the image was about and what the intention was. He actually was a senior in the English class that helped me put that shot together.

As in all things, common sense and fairness should rule. Children are sacred and when they are your own, there is nothing more precious or valuable in your world. I try to remember that when using their images. Just my two cents.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/06/2004 01:20:11 AM · #16

Well ... if everyone just wants to discuss the pros/cons of the ACLU then this will have to be moved to the Rant section.

If you want to continue the discussion of pros/cons of restricting your freedom to take pictures in public places, then please carry on ...

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

12/06/2004 01:21:30 AM · #17

I photograph cheerleaders at about every football game I shoot for the newspaper. I have never been questioned or restricted. They love having thier photos made :)

KDO

Canon EOS-700D Rebel T5i

12/06/2004 01:25:53 AM · #18

jmsetzler, as a journalist, you probably know the answer to this. What are the laws regarding publishing images of minors? If it is a public event, do you need to get a release form to use an image of anyone under 18? When do you need to get a release form, if ever, to print a photograph of an adult in a newspaper?

graphicfunk

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/06/2004 01:26:43 AM · #19

Originally posted by KDO:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your observations are on the money. I never even shoot children nor underage without parental approval. My camera does not give me the right to shoot anything I want.

Message edited by author 2004-12-06 01:27:25.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/06/2004 01:30:02 AM · #20

Originally posted by colema19:

Related to this, I seem to remember a post or a link somewhere on this site that pointed at a little summary from someone supposedly a lawyer outlining what rights a photographer has and a person has etc.

Probably this site here.

KDO

Canon EOS-700D Rebel T5i

12/06/2004 01:36:38 AM · #21

GeneralE, what a great resource. I will be sharing it with my students. It is an interesting case of balance, the key to all freedom vs protection issues. How much freedom are we willing to give up to be protected? And who gets to decide who needs from protecting and from what and whom?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/06/2004 01:41:58 AM · #22

I downloaded the PDF and keep a copy in my camera bag.

Yes, the pendulum swings on those issues. I try to trust that the Founding Fathers devoted more time and intellectual ability to the issue and gave us some good guidelines.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

graphicfunk

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/06/2004 02:18:23 AM · #23

Just remember that your rights are useless if you fail to observe common sense. I will never assume the right to photograph children without approval not withstanding what any organization tells me. Also, when told not to photograph I walk away because a confrontation is one human being who has been given instruction and they may resort to cosfiscation of equipment. You will then have to be embroiled in legal matters to get justice done. No thank you, I want no part of fighting or dealing with lawyers. The camera is a recording devise.
Not long ago a site existed which showed images up womans skirts by photographers getting the shots in the escalators, and look at all the other trash the internet has.

Again, it comes down to common sense but noy worth losing or damaging your equipment. There is so much available that I believe I have no inherent right to record everything I see. After 9/11 a new mind set has set in and your equipment may be confiscated and it matters little if it is legally done or not.

You must keep in mind that it is the same ACLU that wants protection for enemies caught red handed in doing damage to us in this country. I am sorry, when there is a war, the enemy not being a citizen has no such rights.