Very annoyed with one particular parent...

DrDavid

I've been taking thousands of photos for my community Little League. Everyone is happy, except for ONE person who is complaining that her precious little baby boy's face is visible in two group shots. There are no identifying marks on the child, and even the team banner, which is visible, doesn't even have the kids name.

The photos were taken in PUBLIC, in a PUBLIC area. I explained to her that the 1st Amendment covers the usage pretty clearly. But, she complained to the Little League themselves. They waffled back and forth and are now asking me to remove the photos. I don't want to piss off the Little League, as I want to continue doing photography for them, but, I'm really pissed off that some woman is demanding her child's image be removed from the website--especially when the child is barely visible.

What do you do in this situation? Stand by your laurels and say, "It's protected by the 1st Amendment" and risk the Little League simply not hiring you next year? Remove the photo, even though it creates a bad situtation that other parents can complain about THEIR child in the photos and ask that they're removed too?

I'm annoyed over this.... Especially because I know where this is coming from. Another photographer in my area is all pissy that I got the gig and she didn't. She's been prompting others to complain. Funny thing is that the woman who complained is, herself, a photographer (IMHO, not a very good one). She should know the law, and the rules.

Am I being touchy on this issue? Should I just remove the photos and go on with life? Looking for some input into this....

David

LUCKYSHOT

I would say remove the picture, better to keep the gig.Then i would shoot her sons team and spend all day getting sports illustrated type shots of every kid but hers. but then again the photos arent the problem its her friendship with another photographer and her desire to get him in.
I deal with this from time to time on Long Island and unfortunately all you can do is take down the photo and move on, these leagues in their mind have to grease the one squeeky wheel, because they dont want to deal with it either
Good luck

Chris

www.longislandimage.smugmug.com

Skippy

DrDavid wrote:

I've been taking thousands of photos for my community Little League. Everyone is happy, except for ONE person who is complaining that her precious little baby boy's face is visible in two group shots. There are no identifying marks on the child, and even the team banner, which is visible, doesn't even have the kids name.

The photos were taken in PUBLIC, in a PUBLIC area. I explained to her that the 1st Amendment covers the usage pretty clearly. But, she complained to the Little League themselves. They waffled back and forth and are now asking me to remove the photos. I don't want to piss off the Little League, as I want to continue doing photography for them, but, I'm really pissed off that some woman is demanding her child's image be removed from the website--especially when the child is barely visible.

What do you do in this situation? Stand by your laurels and say, "It's protected by the 1st Amendment" and risk the Little League simply not hiring you next year? Remove the photo, even though it creates a bad situtation that other parents can complain about THEIR child in the photos and ask that they're removed too?

I'm annoyed over this.... Especially because I know where this is coming from. Another photographer in my area is all pissy that I got the gig and she didn't. She's been prompting others to complain. Funny thing is that the woman who complained is, herself, a photographer (IMHO, not a very good one). She should know the law, and the rules.

Am I being touchy on this issue? Should I just remove the photos and go on with life? Looking for some input into this....

David

Clone in another childs face over the top of that child's
You should be able to keep the image then right? ... Skippy
.

.

LUCKYSHOT

I personally think cloning in another childs face is underhanded, and spiteful to the parent who complained. And I am bothered that I didnt think of it. I would definately take this route.

Richard

Skippy wrote:

Clone in another childs face over the top of that child's
.

I think this is an excellent suggestion. Even if the law is on your side, it is better for your long-term business prospects to avoid a confrontation. At the same time, you don't want to waste a perfectly good shot that all of the other parents will enjoy.

Regards,

nipprdog

Clone her face over the top of his.

Scott Crouse

Such a sad time when parents are this over protective.

I'd remove the photos for this year and then next year have each parent sign a consent form that clearly states the picture will be posted on the internet. If she won't sign then don't allow the child to stand in for the group photo's that you plan to post. Cruel but then it's mommies fault that little Johnny isn't in the pictures. She can only blame herself when little Johnny is disappointed.

Mulder32

My 2 cents
Scott's idea in the previous post seems to make the most sense. I'm assuming the league has some packet each parent gets in the beginning of the year, and you could request a form be put in about pictures. That way, it's in the parents' hands. As long as you have a list of children not allowed in pictures, then you should be fine.

The cloning idea for the current situation is not bad, but I don't know if I could go there. Better yet, if parents complain, make sure they know the reason why you can't post the picture.

If the other photographer is truly telling parents to complain, then shame on him/her. That kind of underhanded behavior reflects incredibly poorly on him/her as a person, not just a photographer. Good luck with this and hang in there.

anwmn1

Couple of thoughts-

If the childs face is barely visible don't bother with cloning another face over his/hers just clone it out (depending of course on body visible or not). There may be a gap between kids but that child will not be there anymore.

I also agree with getting something put into the sign up paperwork notifying parents pictures will be web posted. One thing you can do if you already haven't- is to have a gallery for each team and password protect it with the caoch's name. A little more work for you but a little more comfort for the parents.

I also agree that on picture day when parents are filling out order packets have a place on your form for them to mark if they absolutely do not want their childs photo posted on the web. This way you can have them removed for the team photo - part of the consequence. It doesn't make much sense to take 2 team photos just so you can post one to the web and it is not fair to all of the other kids and families to not have the team photo posted because of 1 or 2 childs parents.

Best of luck and do not let one parent and one jealous photographer ruin a good gig.

Art Scott

Put a nice SM over his face....let's face it...Smuggy is very cute:D

DrDavid

I love the idea of cloning him out, or replacing the face. I actually was thinking of doing that! I was thinking of a yellow smilie, but, a smugmug logo would be even better!

Some people just like to complain I think. I'm **SO** tempted to post her "Photo Website" on here so that everyone can email her and explain what the 1st amendment means to them. But, I'm far too professional to plunge to such a low-handed dealing. But, it's awfully tempting..

David

claudermilk

Cloning her kid out was my first thought. Scott's idea is a good one, too.

As mich as a PITA as she is, my feeling is it's just as much her right to want to keep her kid's image off the 'net as it is yours to take his photo in a public place. Whose rights end where? Is it really worth that battle here? Seems like the downside far outweighs the upside. Win or lose the battle, the war will certainly be lost. Just a couple of thoughts.

Bodwick

The future of school photography...

Telegraph.co.uk

Richard

Bodwick wrote:

The future of school photography...

Telegraph.co.uk

rofl

chuckinsocal

Cloning another kid's face in doesn't sit well with me simply because it's not reality. What would be reality though is if you either blurred his face or made it ugly beyond recognition. Then when people ask you could say Mrs so-and-so didn't want her kid to be in the photo. Then people will ask her what's up and she'll have to answer for it. You will have shifted the onus back to her.

Just a thought.

Chuck Cannova
http://chuckinsocal.SmugMug.com

Van Isle

I'm going to take a different stand. No confrontation, just don't change anything. You're within the law. Carry on. By acquiescing to her demands or the demands of the "league" you're eroding the freedoms that we take for granted. There will always be someone who complains about something and there is very little to be gained by trying to pander to all the folks who complain.

VI

Van Isle

Seriously, did she not understand what was happening when the kids were lined up in front of the black box on a tripod?

Her opportunity to not allow the photo to be taken has long since passed. Don't be attached to this job, however much you feel you value or need it. Move on if you need to. There are hundreds of leagues with thousands of parents near you who will appreciate your work if you need to change venues.

Good luck.

VI

bikingbets

What a timely discussion we're having here!!

Bodwick wrote:

The future of school photography...

Telegraph.co.uk

photodoug

black bar across the eyes....worked for years.

DavidTO

Make a custom watermark that will block his face for web display only?

DrDavid

DavidTO wrote:

Make a custom watermark that will block his face for web display only?

I'm seriously wanting to take the photo, replace it with the photo of his mom from her website with a word balloon that says something like, "My child's image is missing because I think the Bill of Rights only applies when I feel like it!"

But, well, that'd probably cause more problems than it's worth....

David

chuckinsocal

DrDavid wrote:

I'm seriously wanting to take the photo, replace it with the photo of his mom from her website with a word baloon that says something like, "My child's image is missing because I think the Bill of Rights only applies when I feel like it!"

But, well, that'd probably cause more problems than it's worth....

David

Or ... "my kid's too ugly to be in this photograph" ... rofl ...

MichaelKirk

Touchy subject, especially when children arer involved.
I'm not 100% sure on the specific of this as I personally have not gone through it myself.

If the photos are taken at a league activity - even though they were "Possibly" shot on public property, the Leage either ownes, rented or has a contract to use the land in 99.9% of the cases so in the end what they say will go. Not sure if they can make you take the images off your website, but I am almost certain then can prevent you from SELLING the images....so you can keep your 1st ammendment rights, but never sell a single photo.

Personally, if it was me I would just clone out the individual to the best of your ability and move on - have something in place for next year that when a child signs up - they are signing that you will be taking photos and psoting them on your website.

Michael

DrDavid

Image removed to avoid any issues... However, the photo did NOT include the child in question--his face was photoshopped out and replaced by a photo of the mother from her OWN website.

Well, it made ME feel better about the whole thing..

David

LUCKYSHOT

So her website would be? WWW?????????????????????

tonichelle

I guess I just don't see the reason to be anatagonistic towards that parent.

whether or not the reasons are to benefit another photographer, why stoop to that level even as a joke for other photographers?

Speculation isn't truth, for all you know she just doesn't like havig her kid on the web. It happens, and even though I am a photographer and I get that it's a pain, at the end of the day I also understand parents fears. Even if they are a bit out there or over protective, I know first hand just how far pervs will go.

Just drop the photos off the site until you can clone him out or totally blur his face/number and move on.

Elaine

As a photographer, I can understand the frustration of feeling like someone is being the boss of your photos and where you can display them, especially after the fact. As a parent, I can understand the prerogative of limiting your child's exposure on the web. It seems that a password protected gallery may alleviate that parent's fears, but obviously I don't have a grasp on the entire situation.
Rather than lose the job or get too upset, I would do as others have suggested and plan for next time by having some steps built into your photo system to prevent the current situation.

Nikolai

Turn this lemon into a lemonade...
Clone the baseball cap as if it was down and compeltely cover his face.
Then put your studio logo on his cap/shirt, making the id totally anonymous and getting yourself a free ad space...

snaptie2002

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I may be missing something here but I don't see anything on your website that makes me think it is for anything but selling photos.

That is not covered by freedom of the press. I suppose you could twist the freedom of speech thing around to make it something to hide behind like some strip clubs do or someone that wants to pee on a flag and call it art , but really...........why? Because you want to protect the constitution or because you are upset by some one you think is pushing you around?

Legalities aside I think a mother has a fundamental human right to say where she does or does not want her minor child's picture to appear.


Marty

J-N Design

Is it not a violation of her copyright to use her photo without permission? I'd think you run the risk of a lawsuit if she saw this. Just blur / clone out the kid and be done. And be glad you are not shooting soccer. My understanding is that in some places they don't let anyone shoot the kids just in case one of them grows up to be famous. Something about not wanting embarrassing photos cropping up.

digitalpins

I would just blur the one kids face out or like mentioned before blur the baseball cap down over his face or if their is a way you can photoshop the kid out completely. I dont think blurring the one kids face out is being mean to her its just that one parent that wants to complain. Its not fair to the others on the team that they wont have their photo.

Now when the kid ask why his face is blurred out she has to explain it to him.