Photographing Children - Legal Requirements ?

[William W]

As most of you are aware part of my work comprises Portrait Photography, Sporting Photography and also a Tutoring. I am also involved with couple of Sporting Associations, in a volunteer capacity. The point is, I work with (tutoring) or am involved with for fee or gratis (Photography of) Children or (more correctly for the purpose of this thread) “Minors”.

'Minors', here, means persons under 18 years old.

I have, (and have had even before I was required by law to have), what is colloquially termed a: “Working with Children Clearance Number”.

I think that now something similar is by law mandatory in each State and Territory in AUS and each State/Territory has an individual Authority to manage it, but the database is linked nationally.

My question is – is this a common requirement by law, in other places in this wonderful world of ours?

WW

[Donald]

What we have is legislation that requires anyone supervising or having charge of persons under 18 AND/OR vulnerable adults (and that is defined in the legislation) to be a member of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Scheme. Application must be made by an individual or an employer who intends to employee an individual.

Persons admitted to membership of the scheme are permitted to work with the defined groups (there is one scheme covering children and young people and one covering adults who may be vulnerable to abuse or neglect). Based on intelligence, persons may be barred from becoming members of the scheme and therefore unable to work with such groups. A person's membership can be revoked at any time if new information comes to light that warrants such a decision. So, no work with these groups can be undertaken by anyone who is not a member of the scheme.

Prior to my retirement from employment, I was a member of the Complex Cases Advisory Group (CCAG). This was a group (3 people) drawn together as and when necessary to give professional advice to the person responsible for making the decision about scheme membership. This person is a senior employee of the government's Disclosure Scotland agency. Cases referred to the were those of a particularly complex nature where the decision to admit to membership of the scheme or not, was not at all clear

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure of the details national picture, but in the part of Canada where we live requires that a police check is required by organizations and companies that deal with vulnerable groups. I'm not sure if this is mandatory, but from a due diligence standpoint, no organization would want to be in a position of not having this documentation from their employees and / or volunteers. As in other jurisdictions, this applies to "vulnerable groups, not just minors (people under the age of 18), but also when dealing with people in hospitals, the elderly, people with mental illness, etc.

When working with minors, the check is more stringent, more expensive and takes longer to do. In the case of volunteers, these costs are generally born by the volunteer(s) themselves. At the time, both my wife and I, due to job requirements already had an even higher level of security clearance (these were more detailed and intrusive than the ones used for working with children), but of course the way the program is set up, this was not simply not good enough.

We used to take in foreign students who were in Canada to learn English for a number of years but stopped when the volunteer organizations wanted this certification for everyone living in our household (including (at that time) our youngest daughter who was a minor too.). Paradoxically, there was not reciprocity as the students who would live with the families who had minor children did not have to have any such clearance.

[davidedric]

To add to Donald's reply (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong). My understanding is that if a child is under a court protection order, then it is illegal to take a photograph of that child. However, in general it is impossible to know if that is the case (in fact, the information is priviledged), hence taking photographs of, say, a children's swimming gala, would put you at risk of committing an offence. I assume that parents presenting their offspring for portraits would be pretty safe!

FWIW I am registered under the English scheme, which may well be different from the Scottish one, since we operate under different legal codes.

Dave

[Donald]

FWIW I am registered under the English scheme, which may well be different from the Scottish one, since we operate under different legal codes. Dave

They are different, Dave, although very similar. One of the differences may be what you said about photographing a child under a Court Order. That certainly is not a feature of the relevant Scots Law. However, the question of photographing children generally remains a grey area for many, including those who work in the care & protection system. We, of course, don't have the same legal system and, in most cases, matters pertaining to children will have been dealt with by our Children's Hearing system, which you don't have in England.

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure what the laws are in other jurisdictions, but there is a definite difference between working with children (i.e. teaching them) and photographing them with the permission of the parents or as long as the photographer is in a public place, photographing them without any requirements for permission, unless the image will be used commercially. Any commercial use (which generally means using the image for advertising purposes) means a release has to be signed by a parent or guardian.

Then of course, there are the "ethical" questions, over and above the legal ones...

[rpcrowe]

One of the reasons that I absolutely loved photographing in China was that parents generally do not mind when you photograph their kids. In fact, I am told, they consider it a compliment.





This is kind of strange since child (or baby) stealing is said to be rampant in that country.

https://www.google.com/search?q=baby...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

It was explained to me that this poster concerns a baby who was stolen (like we would put up a poster for a lost dog).

[DEAN01]

This link may be of help--does not specifically address photographing children. Note reference to Texas Improper Photography Law.
Street Photography and the Law: 7 things you need to know
www.clickinmoms.com › blog › street-photography

[William W]

Thank you all who have responded so far.

I wasn't actually asking about any law in regard to IF and WHEN one can Photograph Children, but rather any Law pursuant to interaction with them.

For example I would not need such clearance to walk down the street and take pictures of kids playing soccer in the park - but the Mum or Dad who is the soccer coach (whether paid or volunteer), does.

The only difference between whether one, as part of their employ, needs such a clearance, is that there is a fee charged, If one is a volunteer, for example a volunteer: Sunday School Teacher; Cub Leader; Athletics Official; Football Coach; Car Pool Mum etc. the application process is at no charge. BTW the last volunteer role that I mentioned is interesting because hardly anyone thinks of it!

I was particularly curious in the aspect of the UNPAID situation or VOLUNTEER work. For example, just as the (volunteer) Soccer Coach of the Under 14's Team is required by law to have this clearance, so too is the person who is asked by the Club President to take the Team Photographs for the Club. In both cases that person is usually a Mum or Dad of one of the kids. This was brought to my attention a couple of years ago (not because of any of my business activities - I had clearance for many years prior), but because of my role as President of an amateur sporting club.

WW

[Manfred M]

Bill - in that case to clarify the situation here in Canada.

In Canada all clearances of this type are paid for by the applicant, whether this is a voluntary or paid. The local police are the ones who process these applications and they must receive payment along with the application to provide the certification. In some cases I suspect the employer or volunteer organization might reimburse the person in question, but our experience suggests that in the case of volunteers, most organizations will not do this.

My daughter who had a co-op placement from the college program she was in had to provide this as a condition of employment and was not compensated. Both my wife and I went through security clearance as conditions of employment as well, but in both cases, these were arranged for and paid for by our employers. In both cases, these were handled by higher levels than the local police.

[jcuknz]

in this wonderful world of ours?

WW

Indeed what a wonderful sick world we live in

[William W]

Manfred, et al,

Thanks.

As I mentioned, here in AUS, this is handled by an Authority within each individual State and Territory, but, as I understand the individual Authorities have access to each others' data. As I understand how it works: the Police are involved in so far as the State/Territory Authority checks with their own State Police, but also checks other with Law Enforcement/Intelligence Data Registers.

Part of the core of my curiosity is predicated by (apparent) broad aegis of these laws. For example, it appears that (according to my mate who is a QC) if a Mum or Dad at the end of year Team B-B-Q collects all the kids from the 14B Team and says hey guys get over here because I am going to take a Photo for our Club Website / Facebook page, then that Mum or Dad is in breech without the proper paperwork and up to date clearance number.

I totally understand that, I as a Tutor (i.e. paid) and because that implies one on one instruction I should present myself to society on a Public Register for scrutiny - the same applies to all Teachers, Doctors, Nurses etc. I think that is good and healthy for the society. I also understand that as a Portrait Photographer who, as part of his work might work close to a Minor and away from the Parents and/or instruct Minors apropos pose, etc, - that Parents have the need to feel comfortable that I have undergone scrutiny and that thye can look up my Clearance Number and check it.

I also understand that Parents seek to place trust in the Officials (volunteers) who interact with their kids. For example, as President of a Swimming Club I regularly interact with Minors who are Club Members. Similarly so, qualified Officials of any sport. As another example as an Accredited Technical Official I need to give instruction, sometimes one on one, to athletes (swimmers) who are Minors. Although when I act in this capacity it is unpaid (most of the time), I need clearance to perform my role as a Technical Official, because Minors are involved in the Sport. Similarly we (my Wife and I) often billet interstate and rural swimmers for major meets - (and like you, ALL our family members must have clearance to allow the billet to stay in our house) . . .

But, in the broader context, I am not too sure that I like the idea that if one makes an arrangement between the parents of three families for car pooling to school, that each of the drivers needs to get a Clearance . . . that at the 8 year-old Birthday Party, the Dad of the birthday Girl organizes a group photo, he needs clearance . . . etc.

My thoughts were initially prompted by the recent thread Kim C began: HERE

It was these words, in the opening post that began me thinking about various possible situations:

I love when a family trusts me enough to just hang out with me and wait... this little guy just turned two. My goal was to show the joyful, sweet personality of this child.

It seems, certainly in the opinion of my mate, a Learned Counsel, that to abide by the letter of the law where I reside, being trusted by the family is simply not enough to be allowed to hang out and practice one’s passion of Portrait Photography if a Minor is involved.

If that Candid Portrait shoot as described in Kim's thread were down the road from where I live, it appears that any (amateur) Photographer would need to get Government Clearance, irrespective of the wishes of the Parent's of the Child and, more importantly the Photographer would be in breech until that Clearance is got.

To be clear, it is my view that there are quite a few instances of ‘nanny state’ type laws here where I live and work: and to be equally clear this is NOT a rant about them.

But equally for both clarity and full disclosure: I have previously been at the forefront of contesting a few of these, what I consider unnecessary and socially counter-productive laws. One especially nasty local by-law, introduced a few years ago, prohibited PARENTS from taking photos and videos of their OWN CHILDREN at Swimming Carnivals . . . go figure that? (It was thrown out after about 48 hours and lots of television coverage.)

As such, I was just merely curious as to what the state of play is, elsewhere, in this wonderful world of ours.

Thank you all who have thus far outlined what happens where you live. It has been very informative for me.

*

John,

Indeed. I appreciate, that you appreciate the irony in that phrase.

WW

[Cantab]

Bill - in that case to clarify the situation here in Canada.

In Canada all clearances of this type are paid for by the applicant, whether this is a voluntary or paid. The local police are the ones who process these applications and they must receive payment along with the application to provide the certification. In some cases I suspect the employer or volunteer organization might reimburse the person in question, but our experience suggests that in the case of volunteers, most organizations will not do this.

My daughter who had a co-op placement from the college program she was in had to provide this as a condition of employment and was not compensated. Both my wife and I went through security clearance as conditions of employment as well, but in both cases, these were arranged for and paid for by our employers. In both cases, these were handled by higher levels than the local police.

The situation in my part of Canada is similar in principle to how Manfred described things back east. One difference, at least in the municipality I live in, is that if a criminal record check is for a volunteer, the police waive the fee for doing the criminal record check and also for the more intrusive finger printing if the volunteer is working with children or other vulnerable people.

[rpcrowe]

Before I was allowed to teach at the California community college level, I had to submit fingerprints which were processed through law enforcement records, This was for teaching adults, not minors...

[davidedric]

A bit off topic, but I recall when we where in Cuba and seeing children practising gymnastics in a public square, I asked our guide if it was ok to take photographs.

He looked at me as if I were mad, and asked whether England was actually full of perverts.

Dave