Allowing filming of Dance shows

[david.elsbury]

But, Aidso, what are you supposed to do when one parent objects? You have a group of maybe 20 onstage, but cannot film any of them, because of this one parent objecting, when they (apparantly, according to above) have no right to object anyway!?

[aidso]

They dont really have any right to object. There was a case like this a few years ago where a newspaper had taken a picture of someone outsidea build(forget which one) and there was another guy in the background. The guy in the background tried to sue the paper for printing his picture. the defence was it was not you in the picture. its not our fault you were there. The paper won. Basicly if it were ever to go to court they would just say we were filming the show. Not out fault you were in the shot at that time. But really I cant see any parents having a problem with it. You can also do the whole thing that is done very regulary "Ladies and Gents tonight we are filming the show. If you have an objections please see a member off staff" or a notice being shown on the door "Tonight performance is being filmed" eithr way if they stay in the hall they have consented to being filmed.

[Andrew C]

I'm with aidso on this one.

We will be filming the show; if you object to this, withdraw your kids now before they go through all the rehearsals etc.

That said, we don't allow filming of our shows as it distract the audience; dance shows can only do it from restricted areas, and paying for MCPS or whatever is up to them, and that is made clear in the T&Cs.

[Seano]

AFAIK This is only the case if there is two or more children in the shot, if it hasnt changed in a few years. When doing a website a few years ago for a youth club I looked into this. If it can be seen as a solo shot of a person you do indeed need their permission to use it, but if there is two or more people in the shot and the focus is not on one person you do not need permission.

 

Got a source for that? I'm pretty sure its complete nonsense.

 

Here's my source: clicky

From that page there's a link to this concise pdf guide to 'photographer's rights'.

If you scroll down a bit, you'll also come to this comment from the author of the guide:

 

There have been a number of queries here about the issue of taking photos of children, and I have also has some e-mails concerning this, so I thought it would be worth summarising some points here.

 

In general terms the laws relating to privacy and to data protection apply to children exactly as they apply to adults. The exceptions, children involved in court proceedings and indecent photographs, I did mention in the article. Thus, taking a photograph of a child in a public place, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is no different from taking a photograph of an adult in the same circumstances.

 

In addition, the Press Complaints Commission Code says that journalists must not interview or photograph a child under 16 on subjects involving the welfare of the child, or other children, without the consent of the parent of the child. This is quite a specific exception, obviously.

 

To use a child (under 16) for paid modelling work requires a local authority licence. This should be applied for at least 21 days before the date of the proposed shoot. (This fits in with various protections regarding children in paid work.)

 

(my bold)

hth

Sx

[paulears]

The dance shows are not really a problem because they usually make it very clear to the parents that they won't be allowed to take pictures of their own kids because an 'official' DVD will be available - and these are the rules. The reality is that these parents want the kids to be photographed - that's why they take the lessons - to perform in public, to get stage experience, and for many - to be famous! if they have zenophobia. I'd suggest they're doing the wrong hobby! The dance shows I do usually have very fierce "Miss Wendys" who shout, scream, yell and are pretty un-PC. The ones I know would tell the parents what to do with their kids if they objected.

[aidso]

In the PDF it says this

The lack of any coherent law of privacy in the uk means that photographers are not only free to take photographs of people in publice places, but they can use those photos as they wish, including for commercial gain.

and as I see it a theater is a public place.

[Seano]

and as I see it a theater is a public place

Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Read on:

 

"... Even where property is open to entry by the public in general, as in the case of most business premises, the owner or occupier has the right to demand that a photographer cease taking photographs and the right to demand that he leave the premises. "

 

The management can impose any policy re: photography they want.

[aidso]

right ok we are just getting bitchy here. But yes you are right. The venue has the say here. An example of this is in about 99.9% of council owned leisure facilitys that have performance spaces. The councils normaly have a blanket ban on photography within these premises. But this is up to the venue and not the actor or parent of the actor. So unless there a policy in place from the venue banning photography or videoing then it is fine.

[Ynot]

The main reason many venues have a blanket ban on photos, videos and audio recordings is to prevent (though not always successfully) the happy snappers who MUST take a flash photo of their darling in the show, despite any warnings.

 

I (with my venue manager hat on) have given a couple of verbal warnings to people who've stepped over that mark. Not yet had to eject anyone, but there's always a first time...

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

some venues will indeed charge a substantial facility fee to even get a camera out of its box, as they feel that the venue is easily identifiable; highly prestigious, and adds cachet to any video recording.

 

for example, the Albert Hall.

My daughters were one of the Mardis Gras dance schools performing at the Royal Albert earlier this year - the compere did make a big thing about filming not being allowed, quoting CPS regs etc. In fact, CPS has absolutely nothing at all to do with it - I suspect that the reason given above may be more pertinent. Nothing legal, and I suspect nothing that would stand up in a court, but that probably wouldn't stop RAH flunkies politely tapping you on the shoulder if seen....

[The Gaffa]

Saw a accident on stage in one show a few years ago, a dancer was doing pointe work (ballet), a parent decided to take a pic using a flash, the dancer was tempoarilly blinded and fell off the stage, breaking her leg, the girls parents decided to sue the person who had used the flash, yes they won, the girl hasn't been able to dance since, but still is involved with the dance school.

 

As far as filming goes, if the dance school has said ok to it then its fine, we apply a fixed position policy, which basically means that the camera/s are set up in position and cannot be moved.

 

 

Some of the Dance Schools that come in to our venue, have a notice in the programe stating that photography of any type, is prohibited (by the Dance school), but even with that in clear print you'll still get a parent or three snapping away, usually with a flash.

[Ynot]

... but even with that in clear print you'll still get a parent or three snapping away, usually with a flash.

Which, whilst making me annoyed that they can't read/hear/understand plain English, also makes me grin to myself as it's more than likely going to do one of two things - with a point & click camera it won't be powerful enough from many auditoria to reach the stage, so they get very dark pics, or it'll overpower the lighting states I carefully set, so they get a washed out pic without most of the pretty lighting effects...

 

That alsways makes me chuckle at arena gigs - all those teens flashing away from the rear of the NEC for example - what they'll get is the brightly lit head of the punter in front (indeed, maybe the back of said punter's camera just before IT flashes)...!

[andy_s]

The main reason many venues have a blanket ban on photos, videos and audio recordings is to prevent (though not always successfully) the happy snappers who MUST take a flash photo of their darling in the show, despite any warnings.

 

I (with my venue manager hat on) have given a couple of verbal warnings to people who've stepped over that mark. Not yet had to eject anyone, but there's always a first time...

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

some venues will indeed charge a substantial facility fee to even get a camera out of its box, as they feel that the venue is easily identifiable; highly prestigious, and adds cachet to any video recording.

 

for example, the Albert Hall.

My daughters were one of the Mardis Gras dance schools performing at the Royal Albert earlier this year - the compere did make a big thing about filming not being allowed, quoting CPS regs etc. In fact, CPS has absolutely nothing at all to do with it - I suspect that the reason given above may be more pertinent. Nothing legal, and I suspect nothing that would stand up in a court, but that probably wouldn't stop RAH flunkies politely tapping you on the shoulder if seen....

 

not "legal" - no statutes as far as I know, but it will form part of the contract that the hirer has signed with the venue, therefore I'd guess it would have some standing in civil law. Probably cost more to pay the lawyers to challenge it than to pay the admittedly very high fee the Albert Hall charges....

 

this applies to official requests to film, of course; individuals bringing in their own cameras is a different thing.

[paulears]

Making vague references to 'law' might make some punters take notice, and does have the advantage that people might not think it's just the venue being stuffy. My own venue couldn't care less about recording or or still or moving pictures - unless, the hirer or production company are interested. We usually ask the inexperienced hirers what they want, and take it from there.

[timtheenchanteruk]

the places I work dont want flash photography, it puts off performers, or videos, usually because they are doing their own, and want to sell you one.

 

one of our regular videographers has started with MCPS licences, it cost us about £50 which covered up[ to 100 copies IIRC

[Seano]

right ok we are just getting bitchy here

Er.. do you mean me? You posted stuff that was incorrect, I corrected it. If you think that's bitchy well, soz, get over it.

 

Making vague references to 'law' might make some punters take notice, and does have the advantage that people might not think it's just the venue being stuffy.

The disadvantage being that it tends to perpetuate the myths and misunderstandings, which are already a bit out of control imo, particularly with regard to the child protection thingamabob.