School Portraits with a Paranoid Twist

[Nonno]

"In 2009, Kingston University (UK) students Samantha Harvey and Anna Brooks were trying to photograph children at a school when they were told by the headteacher that they could only photograph single child and only show the back of their head.

In response to this incident and the growing paranoia of photographing children, the duo began shooting Class Portraits, a series of photographs that puts a twist on classic school photos by having the only visible face be the teacher’s."

More at: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1725713/university-students-address-children-photography-conundrum

 

[twinoaks207]

Interesting photo. Over here in the US we haven't gotten quite that bad, YET. We do have administrative policies that forbid posting a child's picture without a signed release from the parent. (Thank lawyers for that one!). It has not yet gotten to the point where ALL photography is forbidden but it probably wouldn't take much to get it there. Sad, really.

 

[Toxick]

"In 2009, Kingston University (UK) students Samantha Harvey and Anna Brooks were trying to photograph children at a school when they were told by the headteacher that they could only photograph single child and only show the back of their head.

In response to this incident and the growing paranoia of photographing children, the duo began shooting Class Portraits, a series of photographs that puts a twist on classic school photos by having the only visible face be the teacher’s."

More at: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1725713/university-students-address-children-photography-conundrum

That photo is about as useful as if they faced all the kids the right way, and then blackened out their faces with a marker.


Which is to say that it's about as useful as a ####-flavored lollipop.


If it comes to this, why bother even wasting the film and photographic paper.

 

[thurley42]

That photo is about as useful as if they faced all the kids the right way, and then blackened out their faces with a marker.


Which is to say that it's about as useful as a ####-flavored lollipop.


If it comes to this, why bother even wasting the film and photographic paper.

my thoughts as well.

 

[royhobie]

Brings up interesting legal aspects. If the children are in a "public place, with other children" then they should be able to be photographed. Not sure where the "actual law" is on this, outside of the hearsay that is believed by some parents and or teachers. Should we keep children completely covered except for their eyes like some other countries do for women? We're not there yet, but give us time.

 

[twinoaks207]

Brings up interesting legal aspects. If the children are in a "public place, with other children" then they should be able to be photographed. Not sure where the "actual law" is on this, outside of the hearsay that is believed by some parents and or teachers. Should we keep children completely covered except for their eyes like some other countries do for women? We're not there yet, but give us time.

Calvert County Public Schools policy (see page 3)
http://www.calvertnet.k12.md.us/departments/administration/policies/documents/1100.1.pdf

Charles County Public Schools policy (see page 4)
http://www2.ccboe.com/PDF/parent-handbook-calendar.pdf

St. Mary's County Public Schools Permission Form (page 73 of their document /82 on the Adobe reader)
http://www.smcps.k12.md.us/docs/09-10 Student Handbook.pdf

These are all pretty much in line with all school systems in that there must be permission to post the photographs (either explicit or implied by non-return of a form). The explanations that we have always been given are that we do not want to expose the children to pedophiles who might seek them out if they are identified by name, or in some instances, there may be custody or other legal issues involved.