Required photo release

[jcousino]

Need help on this for  the group

After looking over the current A_B medicine form on the first part  their is a paragraph that requires that parents release any and all photos ,images

,ect even rights to their Childs voice while under going scout functioning with in the BSA umbrellas with out an option to retain there right. If they do not sign the general  release and wavier  they can not take part in scouting events.

Not sure how many read what they sign

FR. John

PS in my state you are not  allowed to photographing  children  in DCS care so how is that handled

 

I also hereby assign and grant to the local council and the Boy Scouts of America, as well as their authorized representatives, the right and permission to use and publish the photographs/film/ videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings made of me or my child at all Scouting activities, and I hereby release the Boy Scouts of America, the local council, the activity coordinators, and all employees, volunteers, related parties, or other organizations associated with the activity from any and all liability from such use and publication. I further authorize the reproduction, sale, copyright, exhibit, broadcast, electronic storage, and/or distribution of said photographs/film/videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings without limitation at the discretion of the BSA, and I specifically waive any right to any compensation I may have for any of the foregoing.

[malraux]

"List participant restrictions: if any"

That's where you say that you can't take photos etc.

[MattR]

That's amazingly short sighted. I can see how the BSA wants to use fun pictures for advertising but some parents don't want their kids' photos public because they're afraid an ex might find their kid and kidnap them. I didn't make that up, we had to deal with exactly that situation once.

I take photos for my school district and they have the final say on what photos can be published. There are parents that don't want public photos of their kids. It's fortunately very few.

[T2Eagle]

We've had this come up in our unit.  Oddly, what drives this the most is the bit about not being compensated for use of the image, sound, etc.

From a practical point of view there's no way for BSA or councils to avoid taking someone's picture if they're taking pictures at all.  If someone really wants their child's photo to not be used, especially for reasons like MattR talks about above, they can talk to council after an event and try to get any picture of their kid cropped out.  But if you think about things like summer camp videos, or even just publicity photos for a press release or something similar, it would be virtually impossible to identify every kid caught in a frame and then track down their parents for individual releases.

You have pretty much no rights to keep someone from photographing you, and you have only some control over people publishing those photos.  Most of that control comes in the form of being able to demand compensation in the event that the picture is being used specifically for a commercial purpose like advertising for summer camp.

If someone, anyone, captures you or your kid in a picture and then posts it on say Facebook you have no real right to stop that or demand that it be taken down. 

[yknot]

11 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

We've had this come up in our unit.  Oddly, what drives this the most is the bit about not being compensated for use of the image, sound, etc.

From a practical point of view there's no way for BSA or councils to avoid taking someone's picture if they're taking pictures at all.  If someone really wants their child's photo to not be used, especially for reasons like MattR talks about above, they can talk to council after an event and try to get any picture of their kid cropped out.  But if you think about things like summer camp videos, or even just publicity photos for a press release or something similar, it would be virtually impossible to identify every kid caught in a frame and then track down their parents for individual releases.

You have pretty much no rights to keep someone from photographing you, and you have only some control over people publishing those photos.  Most of that control comes in the form of being able to demand compensation in the event that the picture is being used specifically for a commercial purpose like advertising for summer camp.

If someone, anyone, captures you or your kid in a picture and then posts it on say Facebook you have no real right to stop that or demand that it be taken down. 

It depends on who is taking the picture, where, and why. If you are taking photos of your friends' kids and post on your own facebook page, there is little someone can do. If, however, you take a picture of your friends' kids and then put it on an organization site, like a troop or pack site, that's a different matter. It also matters whether the photo was taken in public -- such as at a Main Street parade -- or in private, such as a privately owned scout camp or someone's backyard. 

[vol_scouter]

This has been around for at least a decade and I suspect much longer.  It is not new or related to recent lawsuits.  @yknot and @T2Eagle both make valid points.

 

[SiouxRanger]

My unit always strikes out the release by a line run through each line, initial the block of lines, make a copy for the Troop file.

No one has mentioned the practice-even Philmont.

But we have our evidence if issues arise.

I've heard pros mention that even if folks don't sign the photo release that, "There are ways around that."

Lovely.

We are all just sheep to be sheared against our wishes.

 

[yknot]

2 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I've heard pros mention that even if folks don't sign the photo release that, "There are ways around that."

Lovely.

We are all just sheep to be sheared against our wishes.

 

I hope that is not a real practice because it would be yet another way that youth protection in the organization is being subverted. 

[SiouxRanger]

31 minutes ago, yknot said:

I hope that is not a real practice because it would be yet another way that youth protection in the organization is being subverted. 

As an attorney, I can absolutely assure you that that is precisely what I heard. And I was as alarmed as you. For the same reasons.

 

[T2Eagle]

17 minutes ago, yknot said:

I hope that is not a real practice because it would be yet another way that youth protection in the organization is being subverted. 

How so and by who? The release has nothing to do with Youth Protection it is all about commercial use of a person's image.  Even if you cross out that section it's a long way from there to being able to be compensated by BSA for incidentally walking into the background of a photo that's later published.  Whoever told you there were ways around not having the release was right, depending on the state there are lots of ways around that.  And as I mentioned, it would be even further a stretch to be able to take action against a regular person who posts it to Facebook, and virtually nothing at all that could be done about someone who puts that picture in their own scrapbook.   

[yknot]

2 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

How so and by who? The release has nothing to do with Youth Protection it is all about commercial use of a person's image.  Even if you cross out that section it's a long way from there to being able to be compensated by BSA for incidentally walking into the background of a photo that's later published.  Whoever told you there were ways around not having the release was right, depending on the state there are lots of ways around that.  And as I mentioned, it would be even further a stretch to be able to take action against a regular person who posts it to Facebook, and virtually nothing at all that could be done about someone who puts that picture in their own scrapbook.   

I've worked in media. You cannot publish a photo of a minor in many cases without a written parental photo release. Protecting youth extends beyond protecting their corporeal presence, it includes protecting their imagery as well. For most situations it has nothing to do with compensation, it's about protecting the privacy of a minor. The only way of working around that is to go back and get a photo release after the fact. If someone from BSA is feeding you information counter to that they are wrong. If it's a private photo on a private facebook page or a fair use photo taken in a public setting, that's one thing, but if you post it on Troop X or Pack Y site or you took it in a private setting, you'd better have a photo release. 

[scoutldr]

BSA social media guidelines (rules?) also prohibit using a Scout's full name ... yet it happens every day on the various Facebook groups that I frequent.

[SiouxRanger]

On 2/14/2022 at 11:33 PM, T2Eagle said:

How so and by who? The release has nothing to do with Youth Protection it is all about commercial use of a person's image.  Even if you cross out that section it's a long way from there to being able to be compensated by BSA for incidentally walking into the background of a photo that's later published.  Whoever told you there were ways around not having the release was right, depending on the state there are lots of ways around that.  And as I mentioned, it would be even further a stretch to be able to take action against a regular person who posts it to Facebook, and virtually nothing at all that could be done about someone who puts that picture in their own scrapbook.   

Not crossing it out-you have NO legal argument.

Crossing it out, you preserve your legal argument.

Is the legal argument preserved worth much-not likely as you note.

Can you stand tall at the front counter and Rant with authority-you bet. And if you file suit, the council is DOWN about $10,000 in legal fees before the first eye is blinked.

At the end of the day, we register, we pay, and we stand tall to be sheared by National so it can profit.

ut tAnd National conceals the risk of harm to our kids.

Lovely.

I attended all but one campout that my 3 sons attended, so they were always close by, though I did not hover, but they knew IK was there if there were issues.

But not every parent attends every campout, or even one campout.

"Hey, It's Scouts.  That's safe, isn't it?"

 

[T2Eagle]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

ut tAnd National conceals the risk of harm to our kids.

 

Conversely, 

You cross out the section.  At summer camp I take a video of my scouts, your scout wanders into the background or is part of the group when I'm shooting.  I publish the video on my troop's website.  You sue, your legal argument is weak, in my state virtually nonexistent, but my CO is down $10,000 in legal fees before the first eye is blinked.

Same facts, but this time it's Action News that takes the exact same video and runs it as a feel good filler on the 11 o'clock news.  Both Council, and me take that video, publish it on our websites.  You sue, if you're willing to represent yourself; my CO and Council don't even bother with the $10,000 because Eyewitness News will take care of that, and you're laughed out of court because of a little thing called the US Constitution.

Same ultimate result every time: which is that there was no harm to your scout and never was, because this isn't about Youth Protection and never was.  It was always only about commercial use of an image and cutting down on silly lawsuits.