Yet another potential risk when photographing school sports...

I've posted a longer version of this rant elsewhere on the web so I'll

abbreviate this one - or at least tone down the rhetoric a bit.

 

I live in the Fort Worth, Texas area. Recently a Garland teacher/assistant

coach was accused of "improper" conduct (based on a fairly obscure Texas law) in

video-recording a female wrestling tournament at a Grand Prairie high school

(these are all cities near the Dallas area). Specifically, he was accused of

zooming in and focusing on the genital areas of the wrestlers. The Grand

Prairie police are investigating and he has been suspended from his job. The

teacher says he planned to use the video to learn more about coaching wrestling.

 

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_010232028.html

 

I don't care what his actual motivation is or what the video shows. The law

used to accuse him was not intended for this purpose. It was intended to

protect the privacy of students in places where there is a reasonable

expectation of privacy - bathrooms, dressing rooms, etc.

 

If these were male wrestlers it is highly doubtful that any notice would have

been taken. I'd bet that many parents and school representatives (yearbook

staff, newspaper, coaches) were also shooting video and stills. The news report

doesn't say why this teacher was singled out.

 

Those of us who have photographed action, whether athletes or wildlife, know

that not every shot is framed perfectly. Occasionally we'll cut off the head of

a basketball player as she goes for a jump shot, or capture just the tail end of

a bird in flight. Under this paranoid, reactionary approach to law enforcement

we could be accused of misconduct if a close up of a female athlete misses the

grimmace on her face as she scrambles for the ball and instead catches her

chest. What's next? Will PETA accuse wildlife photographers of sexual

misconduct for photographing a duck's ass?

 

For the past few years I have photographed games in which my relatives' kids

have participated because I enjoyed it and it gave them a document of those

memories. However I will never again set foot inside a public school with a

camera or photograph a child under age 18, even my own family. They have

cameras of their own, let them take the risks.

 

This society has gone absolutely insane. On the one hand middle school

cheerleaders, only 13-14 years old, are permitted, even encouraged, to mimic the

bump-and-grind stripper routines they're exposed to in music videos and even

some programming on Disney and Nick TV. They've adopted Lindsay Lohan, her

Blackberry and "mean girl" chic as their code of ethics. On the other hand,

you'd better not be caught looking, let alone photographing, this school

sanctioned misbehavior.

 

I say bring back bloomers for all female athletes. And loose fitting, long

sleeved turtleneck blouses so there's no risk of provocation. Better still, why

not just home school girls and not allow them outside of the home until they are

21, at which time they will be married off to their pre-arranged mates. If

we're going to become another reactionary fascist state, why not go the whole

route and adopt the worst traits of every other such nation?

 

I'm going back to photographing boxing, where the worst that can happen is a

little blood spatter. A brain addled boxer makes better sense the the Grand

Prairie police department.

This is called "raping justice"!

Typical fascism.

 

Good luck, Texans and other Americans.

You'll need it.

I think that the UK has gone further - essentially, if you wish to photograph children's sport you are a criminal unless proven otherwise and you need to produce that proof.

 

http://www.crb.gov.uk/

Hello Mark - what makes you say that? I can't find any reference to photography on the CRB site.

I agree that things like this can go too far. However, without seeing the tape I can't say anything about this particular case. Yes, we can all have a shot or two (or five hundred) that isn't framed appropiately. As you seemed to indicate above - it's a mistake in most cases and ends up in the bin.

 

However, video is a different beast, and it can become VERY obvious if someone is zeroing in on an inappropiate portion of anatomy. As a dancer I have had this happen to me many times. I haven't spent 7 years perfecting my art, just to have some bozo with a video camera spend 10 minutes taping only my chest/behind. But as an adult I accept that is one of the risks I take with public performances. These young girls haven't made that choice (unless they choose to hide and never participate in any social activity) and even if the girls themselves don't care, as minors, they don't have the legal right to make that choice - it's up to their parents.

 

SO I guess what I'm saying is it all depends on the tape. If it shows an overall depiction of the match, perhaps with a few unintentional gratuities, that's fine. If it's nothing but 10 minutes of zoomed in crotch shots, yeh - the guy's a perv and deserves a reprimand. After all - these girls aren't the cheerleader/strippers mentioned above. They were only trying to participate in a school sanctioned sporting event and shouldn't be humiliated because of it.

 

My opinion, anyway.

Lex, I am also in Fort Worth. I would consider myself a moderate conservative but since 911 the "Authorities" have gone berserk with power. They want to rule like the KGB.<p> I also have two girls and am very concerned about perverts. This may or may not be one but I think the punishment should be after a trial and not before.<p> That said, I am still very cautious taking images these days.

The statute at issue is Texas Penal Code section 21.15 which states: A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means visually records another:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or

(2) knowing the character and content of the photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording described by Subdivision (1).

 

It is a felony. This is in my opinion the most egregious privacy statute in the United States because it does not incorporate the factor that the person photographed has to have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." It is also very vague with respect to what it means to gratify the sexual desire of a person. In theory, some one could be prosecuted for photographing a person wearing skimpy attire without getting permission even if the person being photographed did not care. Taking photographs at a beach would be an example. Likewise, if someone was attracted to men wearing conservative business suits, the statute could be interpreted to mean that such a person would violate the statute by photographing such men.

 

Conversely, the element of "sexual desire" can be a major loophole in the statute. If someone were to install a hidden camera over a lavatory stall for the purpose of monitoring usage to determine whether a restroom had a sufficient number of stalls, it would not violate the statute because the purpose was not to gratify sexual desire. However, this conduct would be highly offensive to most people and would be illegal under the privacy statutes of every state but Texas.

 

I don't disagree that concentrating images on the genital areas of people in public is juvenile and offensive, but it is not appropriate to draft an overbroad statute to address the situation. When this statute was first enacted, I hoped that it would never be enforced in an overbroad way. However, I am aware of two other instances in which photographers have been arrested (one has been actually charged) for photographing people in public places who wearing publicly-acceptable attire and photographed in a normal way (i.e., no upskirting). Texas really needs to amend the statute to require that the subject have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The element of requiring the photographer to have "inappropriate thoughts" opens the statute to abuse because what is considered inappropriate is very subjective.

ACLU, please.

First of all, anyone who is shooting for local newspapers or for booster clubs should have the clearance to shoot the games. Any newspaper, school district, or booster club should do some sort of check on these people. In Alaska, in order for me to work the little league games, I have to have a background check. I also go to some of the meetings to answer questions or address issues that may come up. I also have to prove that I, or my employer is insured so if there is some sort of damage, physical or emotional, I am covered. I also make it a requirement that in the little league forms parents fill out that there is a notification that there will be a photographer at the games and they sign giving consent. If they do not sign, they are asked to inform the league what team their child is on and what the child's number is so I do not post the images onto the website. If they do not, the league considers that the same as a signature.

 

What I am getting at is there are correct procedures to go about things. This guy is a teacher and a coach for other sports at the school. I have seen great coaches that some players do not like get run out of schools by parents because their kid does not like them. This could be the situation. If this coach was video taping the matches for his own education on wrestling, to study later on, who caught him zooming in to areas of the athletes that he should not have? A parent? A school official? Do we really think this guy is stupid enough to make it public what he is doing? Wrestling is a grappling sport. You bend over, you grab body parts, you twist and turn and while you might be focused in tightly on a hold showing one persons head, you might be getting a full spread eagle of the other athlete. It happens. He may be totally innocent. I can see his side of the argument.

 

However, he wants to be a wrestling coach so he is video taping girls wrestling to learn about wrestling? Ummm....not a knock on women athletes at all, I have known plenty of great women athletes, but if you want to learn about wrestling and the holds, I would honestly think that girls high school wrestling would be the last place to look. I am not sure about Texas, but most states do not have enough girls interested in wrestling to have a full girls team for the schools. In my area, there are 1 to 3 girls on a team and some schools do not have any girls on the teams. If the guy wants to learn about wrestling, watching NCAA tapes or olympic tapes would be the way to go. Also, I am sorry, but someone who wants to coach a high school team does not learn about the sport just to coach. Typically, and I would guess that a majority of the coaches in most areas have some sort of background in the sport they are wanting to coach, whether it being a former athlete, or connected to the sport in some way or another. I do not know a thing about cricket, and if suddenly I wanted to coach a cricket team the last thing I would do would be to video tape a cricket match just to learn how the game is played so I can coach it. If I have no experience in it, I would not want to attempt to coach it. So that part of it sounds fishy to me, so I can see the complainants side of the story too.

 

Basically, if you have the authorization's to be there, great, no problems, but if you really should not be doing this, which it appears to me this guy shouldn't have been doing it, then do not do it.

 

It all boils down to the kids safety and if the parents were concerned, that is all it takes, anywhere.

The "I've got a camera and can do whatever I want!" crowd has and does. And shares. Sure, not every guy with a camera is a pervert and pornographer. But it's pretty likely all the perverts and pornographers have cameras.

 

This particular law may be poorly crafted. But the Texas lawmakers aren't the problem.

""The teacher says he planned to use the video to learn more about coaching wrestling.""

The teachers reason sounds like crap to me.

 

I have shot 8yr-14yr football players and cheerleaders for a youth football league this year and after being told ALL my images are to be screened before publication on website, they have to checked by the league director.That was the first and almost last time I took photos for the league. Did I take shots from my 300mm at young cheerleaders doing flips in the air or prancing like stripper at Vegas? No I didn't...in fact I only shot facial close ups since the way thing are now, I wouldn't risk have some money hungry parent trying to sue me. After selling the opening games photos, I was emailed and telephoned about why I don't shoot more games or take photos of the cheerleaders doing their routines. I said speak to your director. I will not place myself in a obvious situation for lawsuit. I did shoot the last game of the season. No cheerleaders, no kids crying, no kids fighting and basically the worst photographic event I have done ...and will never do again.

 

And if I was on that jury, that teacher would lose his job in a heartbeat.

Kelly, I appreciate your feedback. It causes me to reconsider my own sense of the difference between what I find amusing and appropriate subject matter, and the perceptions of others.

 

As I mentioned I live in the Fort Worth area. Most years I attend the stock show (coming up soon) for the always interesting photo subject material. For example, last year I noticed a "No Wheelchairs" sign outside the box office. I photographed a dejected looking fellow in an electric wheelchair coming toward me after he'd been refused entry. I waited until he and the offensive sign were both in the frame and took a few photos. I'd planned to send them to the news media and city of Fort Worth to protest what was obviously an illegal bias against the handicapped. But my nephew was born a day or two later with a serious heart defect and I was distracted for the next few months while he was hospitalized - I photographed him several times a week to document his life. (BTW, he's now a year old and you'd never know anything was wrong other than the large scar down his sternum.)

 

A year or so before what caught my eye was the amusing sight of animal butts everywhere. It seemed that everywhere I turned I was face to butt with cows, sheep, pigs, even chickens. So that's what I photographed that year. When I went to the snack counter for a drink I passed a mechanical bull that was designed for kids. I noticed the young lady who was lifting kids on and off the bull was wearing low-slung hip huggers (remember how popular those things were a couple of years ago and 95% of the women wearing 'em should have received citations for being a public nuisance?) and a thong. When she squatted everyone behind her was treated to a full-on "plumber's butt." My cousin and I were laughing so hard I could barely hold the camera steady to take a photo. I'd never use the photo without the young lady's permission, but it was a fitting addition to that day's photographic theme.

 

I wonder what the consequences might be today in the same situation?

 

================================

 

Bert, thanks for digging up that statute. It's worse than I feared.

 

================================

 

Carl, my only serious disagreement with what you said concerns the value of learning from video or film clips. When I was 14 or 15 I wanted to get into amateur boxing. I had no previous experience and nobody to teach me the basics. Most serious amateur boxing programs consider that age far too late for a beginner - they prefer ages 10-12 in the U.S. and even younger in Europe where amateur boxing is taken even more seriously. I watched everything I could, from old tapes of Muhammad Ali, Jack Johnson, Dempsey-Tunney, Joe Louis and Marciano to the fellow who finally gave me the kick I really needed to get into the sport, a live TV broadcast of Roberto Duran defending his title against Ray Lampkin. I copied the moves I saw, practicing them over and over. I joined a local boxing club but was completely ignored by the coach. I learned by sparring with fellows like future world pro champs Gene Hatcher and Bruce Curry (and getting the hell knocked out of me by both). I never developed much style (or a good left hook that I really needed) but had a decent jab and brutal right hand which saved my butt in several close matches. So, yeh, I firmly believe that video and film can help some of us who are self-taught. And, with all due lack of humility, I'm one of the best armchair boxing analysts I know.

 

===================================

 

Armando, the cheerleaders in my area *want* those photos, especially the girls who have attended expensive and difficult cheerleader camps and studied gymnastics to learn how to perform those cross-court flips. The biggest challenge is to get good candid photos because they're always grinning, mugging and flirting for the camera. It's typical teenage behavior. My daughters were the same way. But you're working in an entirely different country and culture. Until very recently we didn't encounter this kind of paranoia in the U.S.

 

===================================

 

BTW, keep in mind that I'm not specifically defending or condemning the actions of the teacher/asst coach in this particular incident. I don't know all the details and facts of the case.

 

What I am saying is that is further evidence that we photographers can expect to encounter increasingly restrictive environments. I can foresee a situation in which schools will decide to ban all photography, even by family, deciding that privacy will prevail over recording memories. It will be impossible to enforce as miniaturization results in cheap cameras disguised in eyeglasses, etc. (they already exist but aren't cheap and easy to use). But it will effectively ban the use of cameras with telephoto lenses that can take *good* photos. We'll have to buy only officially sanctioned photos that feature only our own child and only after providing identification and a permit from local law enforcement showing that we have no criminal history.

In Florida, one must obtain a 'vendor's badge' from the local school board. Finger-printed and a background check: then you can shoot school sporting events. The key to getting work is keep away from trying to sell anything to the students _ no money there...but the parents are good customers.

 

 

 

 

Shame the teacher failed to understand the edit-and-delete feature of his video camera.

I think Australia can take it one step further. There is legeslation governing the use of cameras in places where children are (concerts, schools, daycares, sporting events etc). This was introduced to try and stem the amount of shots that the perverts were taking (A few people were caught taking photographs of young children for all the wrong purposes). Its always a few bad people that do the wrong thing that bring this upon everyone else. Really this is a comment on the way society is as a whole these days, we need to take 'extreme' measures to protect the young people in our communities.

Question for those living in Australia: What justification was given for imposing these kinds of laws? Was there a problem with children dressing inappropriately or even prancing around nude in school? Were they enacting stripper routines like pole dances and lap dances? Was there any evidence showing that there were significant risks associated with photography in schools, such as clearly emphasizing inappropriate areas of the body (deliberately, not inadvertently); or that photos were being used to set up children for kidnapping; that these photos were being used inappropriately on the internet?

 

Being in the U.S. I may be wrong (I get the impression that the rest of the world believes we're always wrong), but for many years I've following international news reports that have indicated that Australia has been a steadily and increasingly restrictive country, constraining civil liberties in ways that are not - yet - acceptable in the U.S.

 

I have some concerns about motivations behind these laws, one of which is the passage of legislation in the absence of data based on fears that something bad *might* happen, despite no evidence or proof.

 

Also, based on my experience in the area of child abuse, I am always suspicious of the motives of those who attempt to impose their will over that of parents in issues of child raising. I'm not speaking from a standpoint of conjecture. As a college newspaper reporter I received a national award for a series on child abuse. I did volunteer work for a local organization that offered counseling to parents dealing with abuse issues. My mom is a retired social worker. I've had intimate discussions with social workers and psychologists. Many of them were motivated to enter the field because they themselves had experienced serious issues in their lives at a critical stage of development - physicial, emotional or sexual abuse as children; mental and emotional disorders as teenagers and young adults; etc.

 

These people have good intentions. They want to protect others from the painful experiences they endured. But few of them can be objective when confronted with these issues. It clouds their judgement as investigators. And these are among the key people who influence law enforcement authorities and legislators.

 

The news media contributes to this disinformation when they quote "authorities" and don't check the facts. A recent report stated that the U.S. ranks #1 in the world in imprisonment, jailing (and, presumably, other confinement) of its citizens, ahead of Russia and China. I don't want to believe that. But it's probably true.

 

An aquaintance of mine is so convinced that every other home in her community houses a convicted sex offender that she constantly prowls the internet for records. I'll admit that she might have a valid concern - at one point there were three within a mile radius from her rural home, which seems like an unusually high concentration in a sparsely populated community. At times she has been so obsessed with this that she posts the photos and records she finds on the bulletin boards around her desk at home. I'm not sure whether this is emotionally healthy for her young children who can see these photos.

 

Obviously it's a tricky issue. I have children, grandchildren and many young people in my extended family. I want them to be protected. But I'm not sure that reactionary paranoia is the answer. I don't see any evidence that children are actually experiencing any more danger than I did as a kid (but I grew up in unusually tough places). But I actually *felt* that the world was relatively safer back then, probably because we weren't being bombarded with fear-inducing propaganda.

I think video will tell far more of his intentions than still images ever could.

 

Working for my local newspaper, I have a personal choice to make everytime. I choose to take images that I can bring home and show my wife. I never, ever shoot cheerleaders, children, women, etcc...

 

Only once did I feel comfortable photograhing a cheerleader, attired in a bulky unflattering full warmup suit. Point blank, nothing sneaky.Got her name, showed my credentials and emailed her the image later, though the newspaper never ran it.

 

Just because I have a press pass doesn't give me the right to shoot anything I want.

 

In the case of high schools, they own the facility and can allow us to shoot or not. Last week after a wrestling match I ducked into the last few minutes of a JV girls game and shot a friends daughter. As I walked into the stands to show her daddy, one concerned parent righfully asked what I was doing.

 

Use good judgement and even in the case of unwarranted accusations, the camera will never lie.

I did some more research last night (thanks for the tip, Bert). The word "promote" toward the end of this law is absolutely critical. It cross-references the term "promote" as defined in Texas State Code 43.xx having to do with obscentity and related issues (43.21? - I've already forgotten but it's easy to research). The definition clearly states, at least in my opinion, that the term "promote" is restriction to the sale or any other form of distribution. It does not in any way appear to restrict the *taking* of photographs or videos.

 

However it also includes the words "transfer" and "transmit." It's possible that some prosecutor or judge could interpret this to include transferring photos or videos from the camera to the computer or CD/DVD, even if it never leaves one's personal possession.

 

And even if the law is not interpreted that way, it is possible that if the recordings are stolen from one's home and distributed (Paris Hilton, anyone?), the person who originally made the photos or videos might be held liable.

 

So while this law might not be as restrictive as it appears on first sight, it might be interpreted and applied in the most draconian way.

 

As always in the U.S., you get the best justice money can buy. God help the rest of us who are deluded into believing the U.S. Constitution or any laws mean anything other than what we are ordered to believe.

 

======================================

 

Okay... now the more relevant bits.

 

While I can understand the reluctance of some folks to photograph cheerleaders, this is the specific purpose for attending several events I've photographed. Two of my nieces are cheerleaders. One also plays basketball, volleyball, tennis and runs track & field events. To her cheerleading is no less significant than sports. She's proud of what she does because she and her squad work hard at it. Like a lot of guys I started out confused about why she'd want to "waste" her time and talent on cheerleading when she's such a good athlete. But she and her friends enjoy both.

 

Their mom and the girls often ask me to photograph these events, including the cheerleading-only stuff. While mom often does it herself, her only camera is a P&S with a short zoom and flash that creates the red-eye look in almost every shot. If I decline because I regard cheerleading as an "inferior" activity, what kind of message does that send to the girls? That I value their interests only when it emulates what guys do?

 

I try to concentrate on photographing only the kids in the family. But kids are kids. They don't usually perceive danger as adults do and, thankfully, are seldom paranoid (as long as they take their ritalin - that's a joke ...). So the nieces will ask me to include some of their closest friends in the photos. And at virtually every game other girls will jump into the frame and mug for the camera. I always give away copies of these photos on CD to the family and make extras available to the friends, coaches, etc., in case they want to use 'em for the yearbook.

 

I'm not even sure why anyone would object to photographing cheerleaders doing their flips and pyramid routines in which, yup, their skirts will fly up unless they manage to defy gravity. Again, they work hard on these routines and deserve the same recognition as the athletes. It isn't anything a bit more revealing than the activities of gymnasts, figure skaters and ice dancer. (Well, okay, there *was* that college game a week or so ago at which one of the cheerleaders revealed she was wearing thong underwear in her jumps, but that seemed a pretty obvious prank or she did it on a dare. It's all over the internet now. Guys and gals, be careful what you're drinking when you take dares.)

 

Can anyone offer a valid reason why there's any difference between being present for a cheerleading event and watching it, and photographing or videotaping it? I'm not talking about appealing to obvious prurient interests by emphasizing the naughty bits exclusively. But some folks here (and elsewhere - I've posed this question on my blog and another photo forum) seem to have the notion that it's inappropriate even to look at the cheerleaders, let alone photograph 'em. Those cross-court/field hand flips are difficult to execute properly. In our rural schools there's usually only one girl per squad who can pull it off gracefully. That's often the most exciting part of the routine for the parents - why *not* photograph it? But, seriously, I'm open to debate.

 

However, in my case, it's moot. I won't be photographing school events again because of this law. Also, now that one niece is 14, she thinks it's uncool for adult family members to hang around at her events. She just wants a ride home afterward, not affirmation from family during the activities. I can understand that. I was the same way at that age.

Lex, you gave valid reasons why you should and could shoot cheerleaders.

 

I gave valid reason why I have no business doing so (unless of course we are talking about a cheerleading competition where I'm a paid photog).

 

I encourage everyone to seek out a weekly newspaper and try and get credentials. If you are decent (note I didn't say you had to be good) they will welcome your work.

Lex,

 

There are two crimes described in the Texas statute. The first is photographing or videotaping another person without their consent and with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. The second is to distribute (i.e., promote) such a photograph with knowledge of its character. In other words, the act of photographing is a crime even if there is no subsequent distribution. As stated previously, I think this is a bad law because (1) there is no requirement that the person photographed have a reasonable expectation of privacy and (2) the meaning of the phrase "arouse or gratify the sexual desire" is unclear and subject to an overly broad interpretation.

 

I agree with you about the photographing of cheerleaders. Cheerleading is an athletic and public activity that has come to be treated as a sport. There is nothing perverted about the activity even though a few weirdos may have strange and inappropriate views about it. The same can be said for photographing other youth sports, college sports, and professional sports. Most people interested in sports are interested because they enjoy athletics and not because they want to satisfy some disturbed sexual desire. Photographers should be free to record the public activities in their communities and it is sad that many feel cowed because of the attitudes of hypersensitive or unduly fearful people. Because of this, we stand to lose much of our recorded history.

allahın belalarını g�t deliğinden domaltıp sikmek lazım.