DSLRUsers.com

In today’s SMH.com.au, an article reports on how Coffs Harbour eisteddfod organisers have banned photography of child performers due to the risk of pedophiles.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19 ... 21,00.html

“Coffs Harbour eisteddfod secretary Janelle Palmer said the television series MythBusters, which investigates urban legends and misconceptions, was one of the reasons behind the move.

“She said the show had proven a person's naked body was visible under costumes if a photo was taken with a flash.”

Apparently the organisers claim NSW child protection laws have made this ban necessary, although it was good to see some commonsense from the government:

“NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People Gillian Calvert said there were no legal requirements to seek permission to take or publish a photograph of a child.

It is also not an offence to photograph people where the activity is not private, such as in a public place.”

I briefly caught this story on Sunrise this morning. The world has gone mad and I am sure that eventually the backlash will bring some commonsense to the debate.

Jonas wrote:“She said the show had proven a person's naked body was visible under costumes if a photo was taken with a flash.”

Let's hear it for the misquote of the year. Yes, that can well be the truth, depending upon the clothing being worn.

No wonder they call Coffs the banana republic.

I think we should all sell our cameras now.... Soon we won't be allowed to take them out of the house....

And the pictures you can take inside the house you can't post on the net

Paul

Jonas wrote:“She said the show had proven a person's naked body was visible under costumes if a photo was taken with a flash.”

I have to ask the question, if they knew that a flash would reveal a naked body under a costume, why didn't the said person wear something under the costume to hide their nakedness.......??

Stuart

smac wrote:

Jonas wrote:“She said the show had proven a person's naked body was visible under costumes if a photo was taken with a flash.”

I have to ask the question, if they knew that a flash would reveal a naked body under a costume, why didn't the said person wear something under the costume to hide their nakedness.......??

Stuart

Because the photographer would then use TWO flashes to get through TWO layers of clothing.

My vote for Janelle Palmer as moron of the year.

Please no flash photography as she receives her reward.

Totally Bull Dung

smac wrote:

Jonas wrote:“She said the show had proven a person's naked body was visible under costumes if a photo was taken with a flash.”

I have to ask the question, if they knew that a flash would reveal a naked body under a costume, why didn't the said person wear something under the costume to hide their nakedness.......??

Stuart

Stuart,

Doesn't matter how many layers of clothing that you wear. You're still naked under it all.

They used their official council pedaphile photographer to determine whether this was fact or fiction. His report was a conclusive yes after taking 40,000 pics and proving that in one you could see a clothed young body.

These people are f*cking morons

I've never seen the episode in question - what the hell was the conclusion, if any?

And where do I get one of these alleged super-flash units?

Chris,

They probably used filum for those shots, and we all know that things are different with digital photography.

So far, in all of this debate (much of it is mass debate) I've heard but one valid argument suggesting that a ban might be reasonable, that argument being that the uncontrolled photography might be a distraction and put some of the performers off their performances.

Of course, some might argue that if the performers are that easily distracted, perhaps they shouldn't be on the stage?

I shook my head in bisbelieif at this when I heard it. I was tempted to yell at the radio, but fear of waking my child and wife stopped me. What a bunch of utter wankers!

Maybe if the petty power wielders in the world today spent a little less time "looking out for our welfare" and getting on with living themselves, there might not be so much of this sort of crap going on. Years ago it was just your local council that played these power games, now it seems it's everywhere.

Fucking morons.

I was going to formulate an intelligent response but when the argument is this inane there is nothing more I can say than fucking morons!!

My daughters eistedford has always banned pictures and video of any performance.

I was told it was to stop distraction of the performers, but I suspect its also to stop any comeback on the judges.( Parents can be ruthless).


But if it is about pedophiles, I'll take the Rokkstar response.


MATT

You are all missing the point!!!!

Its not that photo's cannot be taken at these events. It just that YOU and I cannot take them but they very kindly will refer all parents to the authorised non child molesting video/photographer where you can "purchase" said video's/photographs of your own childs performance at a very reasonable $60 per DVD or $12-15 per photo of which I am sure the organisation hosting the performance get absolutely no kick backs whats so ever. NOT.

Tristram, I suspect you're pretty close to the mark.
Cheers
John

The solution is simple. If they won't let you take photos of the concert then don't let your kids perform. Send a note to all the parents to that effect.

If anyone has ever been on a P&F organising committee, many of the members are excellent contributors, but it only takes one petty minded morons that, for a brief instant in life, has a position of power and imposes their will on others.

hi

now i have heard eveything...

smac wrote:If anyone has ever been on a P&F organising committee, many of the members are excellent contributors, but it only takes one petty minded morons that, for a brief instant in life, has a position of power and imposes their will on others.

O/T

Totally agree, and am having problems at the moment.

I understand somepeople have a different slant on things, but why cant they except no for an answer????


MATT

There is nothing these WANKERS can do to stop you taking a photo.
IT IS NOT AGAINST STATE LAW IN NSW TO STOP YOU TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH IN A PUBLIC PLACE.
These people need to stand in a front of a mirror and TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK AT THEMSELVES!

I posted this once before, http://www.videoguys.com/ediusNX.html well worth the read. All about our rights

This current episode was for an Eisteddford in Coffs Harbour.

Given that these sorts of events are typically held in church halls and community centres, I would suggest that neither of those sorts of premises would ordinarily be deemed to be public places in the way that a street, pavement, or a beach might be.

Consequently, the rules pertaining to public places might have less relevance than some are giving credence to.

marc wrote:There is nothing these WANKERS can do to stop you taking a photo.
IT IS NOT AGAINST STATE LAW IN NSW TO STOP YOU TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH IN A PUBLIC PLACE.
These people need to stand in a front of a mirror and TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK AT THEMSELVES!

The thing is though, wouldn't the event be in a private venue? If so, then I guess they have the right to restrict the taking of photos as part of the conditions of entry. If it's a public place then obviously they have no right (technically)

johnd wrote

Maybe if the petty power wielders in the world today spent a little less time "looking out for our welfare" and getting on with living themselves, there might not be so much of this sort of crap going on.

totally agree - these social control freaks think there is a perfect cotton- wool world out there for their precious child (= investment)

these are the same dickheads who have removed all the monkey bars and climbing gear from our schols and playgrounds and then wonder why our kids are so poorly developed in the upper body, have acute risk aversion and dont know how to play naturally and freely like kids should.

lets all camp out side their house with our SB800/600s loaded and ready (for that potential nude shot!!)

R2

The ABC finally have the transcript up of a story they did at lunch time.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 657720.htm

Perhaps the photographers need to get together and have some sort of protest at the entrance to one of these events. They should show how pointless the whole thing is and photograph everybody going in

I gave up on society a long time ago when they banned the sale of fireworks in NSW.

Since that time our common sense started dropping.

Sir Tristram wrote:You are all missing the point!!!!

Its not that photo's cannot be taken at these events. It just that YOU and I cannot take them but they very kindly will refer all parents to the authorised non child molesting video/photographer where you can "purchase" said video's/photographs of your own childs performance at a very reasonable $60 per DVD or $12-15 per photo of which I am sure the organisation hosting the performance get absolutely no kick backs whats so ever. NOT.

Exactly. In the same story it says "Organisers have hired a professional photographer who will not sell photographs to anyone except parents or teachers." Tell me that guy won't use a flash.
Friggin' dipsticks.
I suggest we post this story on as many web forums, blogs etc so the sheer, blatant ignorance of this is spread far and wide - as photographers we need to start biting back.

edit: http://www.coffseisteddfod.org.au/Downl ... hedule.pdf

19. VIDEO & PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES:
The Society has contracted the services of an official video production company and photographer for the duration of the eisteddfod.
IN THE INTEREST OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, PRIVATE RECORDINGS OF ANY KIND - DIGITAL, VIDEO, FLASH OR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY ARE NOT PERMITTED INSIDE THE AUDITORIUM. BREACHES OF THIS RULE MAY CAUSE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE STUDIO REPRESENTED BY THE INFRINGEING PARENT/S OR FRIENDS.


Frank

excuse me but these people are NOT Wankers.

This is a fallacy they are in fact "Grippers".

A Gripper is similar to a Wanker except they don't have the intelligence to move their hand up and down.

couldn't they just say "no flash allowed" and use the excuse that it will distract the performers

This intelligence level is sort of like banning soft drinks in canteens of schools but as a result selling more sugary snacks.

But I like stupid people around, makes me feel so much better.

In response to Frank's post on p2, it seems that the organisers of the concert are more concerned about issues of copyright and losing the exclusivity they have with their own hired photographer.

Perhaps the pedophile concern is a side issue beaten up by the media, or the organisers are using it to justify controlling and selling all images related to the event.

I wonder if they really would carry out their threat to disqualify any kids from the contest because their parents or friends took photos of them. Sounds pretty unfair to me. Although this whole issue smacks of unfairness and craziness!

I like how they pull out the "In the interests of copyright" bullshit when it is plain that they have absolutely no idea what it covers.

But I'm feeling ignorant myself. I just discovered on our departmental intraweb that WE are the department who is in charge of copyright stuff. Might find out where those lawyers all sit...

whiz wrote:I like how they pull out the "In the interests of copyright" bullshit when it is plain that they have absolutely no idea what it covers.

Actually, in these instances, there is often copyright in the costumes and the performance material, and some of the choreographers and designers involved do have a reasonable claim to IP for their work.

That in no way justifies this sort of BS.

From today's SMH, Stay In Touch section, an item headed "Hit and Myth".

A brief extract (brief to avoid any copyright infringement)

SMH wrote:A quick leaf through the papers might have helped reassure the anxious that paparazzi flashbulbs rarely, unfortunately, strip their subjects. Meanwhile, over at SBS, confused programmers say they have no records of such an episode ever having aired.

Unfortunately, we live in an age where the ignorant have far too much influence. Some dopey bastard says something, other dopey bastards believe it, attempts to correct are (often deliberately) misinterpreted to create a sinister element, and stupid decisions are the result.

They might get to own the copyright but I think, you, the parent, might have something to say if they start using images of your child in promotions without your permission. Because the child is under age they will need a signed models release from the guardian and this is where you can screw them back. Also, what's the betting that if a TV crew comes along to film some of the show for the local news the school will bend over backwards to accommodate them, licking their boots all the way. And there goes the "There may be a custodial battle going on and we have to protect the identity of the kids". Let's watch that space.

This is classic. My daughter dances at eistedfords all the time and a few years back I saw this photographic company fully decked out with mac laptops the whole shebang. These guys were making a killing. maybe 500-100 kids dancing at the NIDA theatre. I also saw this company at the Australian championships in Jupiters Casino. Even more money more kids.
Guess what? The guy that used to own the company which is now defunct got his cameras siezed and charges laid for you guessed it the Peddo thing.

I hope my daughter had some extra clothes on under her dance outfit!

I'm not sure if its that we are living in an age where the ignorant have too much influence or whether it's that we live in an age of fear. Fear of litigation, fear of the media, fear of our safety etc.

Or perhaps in this case its a combination of the two.

I don't think that there is much doubt that ignorance was at play with these mysterious stripping flashes (not to be confused with stripping flashers) but at the same time this doesnt mean that there's no risk of perves turning up at these events and taking pictures. I guess that was their fear, and the ignorance provided the means to what they think is a satisfactory solution. Conveniently they might get a few $$$ out of it as well. It's just a case of the minority ruining it for everyone else.

I'll rest easy knowing that they've hired a professional photographer to cover it! No professional photographer has ever been a pervert ... it was on Mythbusters once!

There is a system for taking such photos on a beach. some video sensors were very sensitive to IR light with the correct filter over the right sensor a certain amount of "transparency" is acquired through "WET" and only wet lycra.

Given that little or no underclothes are usually worn under swim-wear a certain amount of voyeurism is afforded.

This was actually discovered by people looking at surveillance IR photography of camouflaged military equipment. (don't ask)

I for one have not done any research in this field OK

Some interesting comments here and Sir Tristram, Frankenstein, Jethro, Gary and others have got it covered.

As an eisteddfod father for many years now it is common practice to ban private photography and videography at such events due to the copyright and distraction reasons already mentioned.

The 'ransom' one has to pay to the contracted video production companies is exorbitant when one could often do a better job oneself. I complained strongly about the hack editing job done by one such company at a concert last year and they didn't get the gig this year so I felt vindicated in expressing my opinion to the dance school.

As far as photography at such events is concerned - Gary's right, there are intellectual property concerns but rival dance studios just sketch opponents costumes and make notes on choreography anyway so the banning of 'electronic capture' is a moot point. The mongrels always find a way to copy things.

I'm quite happy to have professional photographers contracted for these events. My mother is on a first name basis with most of them and orders a stack of shots of her grandaughter anyway - so I always get some shots out of it and I haven't got to worry about tricky lighting situations and lens choice. Plus, I can take as many shots as I like outside the actual auditorium - and usually do.

As a parent myself I find this banning of parents photographing their own children a disgrace.
I know there are a lot of sick people out there but honestly what are they going to do with photos of fully clothed children?
If this is progress God help us...

terminator wrote:As a parent myself I find this banning of parents photographing their own children a disgrace.
I know there are a lot of sick people out there but honestly what are they going to do with photos of fully clothed children?
If this is progress God help us...

I am a parent to and I believe I may soon be a grandparent.

All I can say is "God help anyone found to be taking pedophiliac or voyeuristic photographs at one of these events. Being arrested by police would be the least of their worries"

The words "Lynch mob" spring to mind.

Now that we've all had a collective spleen vent, lets not overlook that it's isolated events that are being portrayed here.
It's not time to march against the establishment just at the moment.
1. It's a current affairs beat up. Don't give them that much credit.
2. It's blatantly to protect someone elses interests.
3. It's a bunch of schoolteachers making this policy. They don't live in the real world.
4. You can still take photos in a public place of any children that you feel like without permission and threaten to sue anyone for libel/slander if they infer that you're a paedophile.

pedophiles don't go to school concerts to get their images. They get them off the internet or they peruse the popular department store catalgues for childrens underwear ads. I would like to know how many pedophiles have been convicted for taking photographs at school concerts and then using them inappropriately. My guess would be very few. We live in a society that is increasingly becoming very neurotic.

Hi all
Well I see it is not just in the United States that this kind of stuff is happening . Has the whole world gone bonkers?
It has gotten to the point if you point a camera at some one or some thing someone will call the police to report you . I have been stopped and questioned at least 10 or 15 times about taking photos of lighthouses, Fire Trucks and trains. The time with the fire truck I was the driver.
But the best one last sunday I was stopped and questioned
about photographing a church. What is this world coming to.

Bob Campbell
Glenford, New York , USA

They were worried Bob, that you might get a pic of God - and that’s classified  BTW - welcome to the friendly forum

sirhc55 "They were worried Bob, that you might get a pic of God - and that’s classified"

good one

trolleycar709 "Fire Trucks and trains. The time with the fire truck I was the driver"

excellent

maybe someone should write a book. where not to take photograph

christian