PARENTS MAY BECOME SUSPICIOUS...

Brain, with all due respect, nobody sincerely uses the words "bitching" and "respectfully submitted" without clearly indicating disdain for others' opinions. You'll have to excuse me if I decline your insincere "apology." You are failing to fully read and comprehend the details of this discussion (including the other related threads) in its entirety, or you're more interested in listening to yourself than in participating in a discussion.

 

If you understood the context and what people are actually saying you'd recognize that our opinions don't differ significantly. If you choose not to be outraged by draconian legislation, that's your choice. And if you fail to see the point of such discussions, no one is forcing you to read or participate.

What considered "proper" is as old as mankind. Sports are as old as mankind. Watching sports is as old as mankind.<BR><BR>When did the stupid parent gene offshoot occur? Is it becuase the parents have a hidden deviant background that they are so suspicious? Is it the guilt of not passing on whats "proper" to their kids? One can be at EVERY highschool basketball game for the season, and some parent will show up the about the last game, and ask you why you are there, with a guilty tone. <BR><BR>Folks who want to quash watching and photographing sports are ones to be suspicious of., they are probably mafia, wanted, cheating on their partner, and some are so dumb they dont even know what their kids # is; or how many fouls they have already. <BR><BR>

Thank you Lex for straightening me out. I could not have slept tonight without your counsel.

<i>What considered "proper" is as old as mankind. Sports are as old as mankind. Watching

sports is as old as mankind.</i><p>

The Olympians competed in the nude. Oh, and Kelly, the Irish fought wars in the nude,

too, with women at the front ranks. Maybe that's the way it should be again. For the Irish I

mean.<p>

Yes, topic drift. BACK ON TOPIC...<p>

Possibly most of the heavy-handedness comes from a fear of being exploited, from people

who are not concerned with the poor bastard wierdo doing crotch shots, but from he who

would exploit the images by sharing them. It is so easy and prevalent to share images.

Politicians make easy sound-bytes, cops do their job which is becoming aligned with the

unanticipated by-product of policies, of zero tolerance and mandatory sentences. Seems

a person can't have his own good sense anymore.<p>

American schools infantize students. Parents are letting the schools raise their children.

Community Standards are a red herring that offers a rationalization to the worst kinid of

parents so that they can expect someone else to take parenting responsibility.

What can we do?<p>

I'm good with quitting the particular business that is full of grief. But let 'em know, in a

way the the easily excited can absorb - short, ordinary language.<p>

<u>Mr. and Mrs. America, a helpful, talented and concerned member of your community

has chosen not to help you - because he cares, and you don't.</u><p>

Pico, the Scots fought in the nude also. To make themselves more fearsome they also painted their bodies and faces... or was that to conceal their identities in case someone was vioeotaping/photographing???

Having served a a camera operator for many years, I have come across numerous photographer/videographers complaining about "the other guy without credentials". It seems that they seem to be more concerned about what others are doing. I agree that if there are areas limited to media only then so be it. However, when there is no special area granted to the media then they shouldn't take it out on parents or the "uncredentialed" photographers because they get in their way. That's the typical media attitude. As long as the game officials allow it, parents and other photogs can go where they please. Using the argument of privacy and improper conduct to limit photography then claiming that only credentialed photographers should be taking photos to avoid litigation seems a bit selfish.

Sorry to be so late into this discussion but as a news photographer and also one who shoots little league when one of the nephews is playing, Robbie, what you said in your last contribution to this discussion is biggest lot of bullsh#t I've heard this month. Honest to God, who are you to say who should or should not be taking a camera to an event open to the public. I have developed my own little policy about being questioned when I'm somewhere with a camera. If I'm working, I'll say so. If you don't like it, too bad. If I'm not working and am approached politely I will respond in kind. If someone decides to get belligerent, parent or not, they will find out it's none of their damn business what I'm doing there and they can feel free to call the nearest law enforcement officer to discuss the matter. I must be getting more bad tempered in my old age. I'm tired of being treated as if I'm in the wrong and feel it is high time we stand up for ourselves. Lex least has a defensible position but Robbie yours is the worst kind of all the kinds of BS there is.

 

Rick H.

I'm based in the UK and shoot for a local Rugby club both at Senior and Junior levels. If I'm planning to shoot Under 18s I e-mail the Child Protection Officer at the club a week in advance. She then contacts the home coach and the away coach to advise that I'll be present. They in turn advise the parents. Notices are posted at the ground on the day. If anybody is unhappy I won't shoot their child it's as simple as that.

 

I had a job last year covering a dance and gym show for a girl's school. It turned out that the parents of one of the girls were going through an acrimonious divorce with restraining orders etc and the Mother didn't want her daughter's photo taken in case it ended up in the public domain and her ex husband found them. This is the clearest reason I can see that professional photographers ought to have some sort of agreement in place before shooting any event that involves children. If a parent is shooting from the sidelines, fair enough. They're unlikely to do anything more than order prints of what they've taken, but how can you call yourself a professional if you just roll up and don't work with the agreement of the organisers of an event?

Dave

 

I do not have the time to read the entire thread here but I felt compelled to respond. I am a parent without credentials. What I want to know is what you mean by credentials? Who issued them? Why should one person get better access than another? Did you sponsor the event? Did taxpayers sponsor it? The fact that "credentialed" people will be put out by the unwashed masses is to bad. The fact is I re-entered the world of photography purely because my six kids play so many sports that I couldn't afford their photos so, I started taking my own and rapidly learned I needed better equipment and more skill. Today, after several thousand dollars and approximately 30,000 sports photos, I am able to shoot well enough to be "credentialed". The fact is unless it is a contractual arrangement no one has the right to claim better access to public sporting events.

 

I am one of those .com guys you seem to revile. I post my images and usually give them away. Most times people are grateful. I earn my living doing other things and photography is a hobby and a way I can give back to the community. Sure I will take pay for private sittings but I also do them for free. Why should I be forced to shoot from the bleachers?