Whats the world coming to?

Here is a link that you may find interesting if you take photographs of

childrens sport.

 

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11964-6347685,00.html

 

If the link does not work here is the jist of the story.

 

Gymnastics New Zealand will registered and label all cameras at the national

championship to combat the risk of paedophiles taking inappropriate photos of

young gymnasts. This will include photo-capable cellphones. A spokesman said

that Gymnastics New Zealand had the right to confiscate cameras or delete

images considered unsavoury.

 

Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Apparently some team sports will not let

anyone take pictures (even of their own children) unless all parents have

consented. Is the era of photographs of children playing sport comming to an

end?

 

grant

What's the world coming to - reminds of Orwell's 2004. I don't know about the law in the NZ but there is a distinct infringement to the Bern convention (mother of all international and national laws of copyright). Basically, only the one who owns the copyright is lawfull to delete the originals. Shifting copyrights is usually very carefully worded in law.<p>

 

Really weird NZ-business, in fact, rather worrying and narrowminded! The georgebushes of this world will get kicks from this.

Hello Grant, my take on it is that it's good to see child protection being treated so seriously. Although it's good to be able to photograph our children, for sports clubs and authorities child protection is paramount.

 

I'm a cricket coach in the UK and could coach youngsters from 5 or 6 years old. I would always want their parents to know that my wards are being looked after with the highest possible standards of child protection.

 

Ask yourself how you would feel if your child was being photographed by the wrong sort of person.

 

My 2p

 

Pete

"George Bush" or support for pedophiles. Seems like an easy choice that the Kiwis have made.

Any photographers up close to the action I bet already had to have credentials, and completely police the crowds? Maybe. What I don't hear in any of the articles I found about this is a documented case that drove the original ruling. If there is a documented case at these events, my view might change - but in absence of that it sounds a bit like fearmongering to me. I mean, can you see some old lady scouting the crowd for "suspicious" types? So subjective, and it turns those sort of volunteers into paranoid morality police. That nice old lady talks to her rotary club, they nod knowingly and then on the street when a photog turns their camera to a child they think bad things automatically. *shrug

 

PR stunt is what it is imo, and it worked very well. I wouldn't go as far as Orwell, but I will say if there are parents that truly had concerns and there were no granular related cases then the onus of policing the crowd falls on them, not society as a whole. Just my take, but I'm extremly cautious about any social movement that takes us even a small step towards the sort of "cover your women head to foot" ideas of how we should behave in public towards our neighbor. Paranoia is the enemy, not just bad people.

A sad sign of the times in which we live. I can appreciate both views, but I'd rather see people be a bit overcautious when it comes to kids than be too lax.

Will New Zealand find a way to 'censor' the Olympic gymnist events when broadcast on television? That should take some police work to find out who is watching what - when - and where.....

 

 

 

 

A good number of international gymnists are still kids.

One rotten apple and all apples are rotten, right.

As a sports photographer, I have taken shots of many different sports, including youth. I recently shot the Victorian State Gymnastics Championships here in Melbourne (Aust). The one thing I find amazing about this article is that it doesn't mention that all of the people in the crowds are meant to be there. They are parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, coaches etc. The Official Photogs (myself included) are on the floor and are fully credentialled.

 

At this event, I looked into the crowd to see several people with medium telephotos and semi pro cameras. All of them were parents.

 

If they are saying that they want to stop the pedo's with cameras at these type of events, then basically they are pointing the finger at the parents and relatives of the competitors, as there is basically 0% of people that shouldnt be there.

 

As far as the Olympics & such, the minimum age for competing is 16, with most of the competitors are 18 and over. They just look really young due to their training schedules & diets.

 

We have to stop this trend of "If he has a camera, he must be a pervert"

 

Mike Brown (Melbourne Australia)

Those who always see the negative better look inward. Those who see pedophiles behind every camera better look in the mirror.

Such a delightful topic -- its just a shame to let it die (that's just my sarcasm, folks, not to worry, I have credentials).

 

But anyway, a couple of comments on follow up.

 

Someone (Mr. Brown, I think) said that they'd be targeting the parents, the friends, aunts and uncles, etc. the very folks who SHOULD be there. Well, yes. That does seem to be true. But that may be because, as the article also points out:

 

". . . the great majority of child sex abuse took place within a family environment or by someone known to the child."

 

The other matter was the credentials thing -- as if a credentialed photographer was immune by virtue of having them. Sure, if they are credentialed, chances are they are supposed to be there, but it doesn't follow that they aren't perverts.

 

In fact, it sounds like the pervect cover!

 

(Not to suggest that any of you folks with credentials are pervs)