Parents Forbidden From Photographing Own Kids At Public Pool
But pool administrators can photograph all the kids they want for the pool's promotional brochure

Parents are forbidden from photographing their own children at a Minnesota public pool.
But have no fear: The administrators for the Highland Park Aquatic Center have cameras and will be snapping away at your kids as they frolic in the pool in their bathing suits.
Those pictures might not make it into your family album. Unless you cut it out of the promotional brochure where they might end up.
Trish Lynne Deutsch wrote the following Facebook message to Photography is Not a Crime:
I was stopped at a city-owned water park and told I could not take photos of my own children.
Highland Park Aquatic Center is owned by the city: http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=2665. I tried to argue a bit, but then I just decided to pretend I was texting with my phone....whilst taking stealth photos....*of my own children*.
The reason they gave was that last summer someone walked in front of a patron who was taking pictures, and there was "an altercation", so now they just don't allow photos. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
In the brochure, it says these two things about photos: Photography & Video Recordings:
Saint Paul Parks and Recreation uses photography and video recordings to document activities and promote recreation opportunities. Participation in a recreation activity serves as your consent to such photographs and recordings unless you indicate otherwise to the facility staff.
And: Cameras and all video recording devices are not allowed on aquatic facility grounds including parking lot and locker rooms.
So in other words...they can take pictures of my children and put them on their website....without my permission, but I cannot take pictures of my own children, for my own private use. ??
Being this is a public pool, I’m curious as to who implemented this new rule?
And does it include cell phones? Nobody gives up their cell phone for anything these days.
Did the issue go before the city council in St. Paul, which is billed as the “Most Livable City in America?”
So livable that you don’t even have to photograph your own kids, they’ll do it for you.
Or was this just a decision made in haste to prevent future “altercations.”
Maybe they should start banning the people who created the altercations rather than the cameras themselves.
UPDATE: Here is the photo-rich brochure stating that cameras are not allowed near the pool or parking lot of the public-funded pool, but citizens entering the pool are automatically giving consent to be photographed or videotaped by staff for promotional purposes. Page two.
UPDATE II: The Highland Park Aquatic Center has responded to the issue on its Facebook page as well as in the comments below. A big thumbs up for its quick and honest response.
Your comments are appreciated, and have highlighted an error that has been promoted and enforced incorrectly, and is not a centrally administered policy by the Parks and Recreation Department. We are moving to correct this error and educate staff on the correct policy that allows patrons to take photos and videos in public facilities/open space. This error will be corrected and communicated accordingly. We apologize for any issues this may have caused.
Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?





























Comments
Waitwhutt...
"And: Cameras and all video recording devices are not allowed on aquatic facility grounds including parking lot and locker rooms."
So cell phones are banned from the parking lot?
A PUBLIC parking lot.
Make sure everyone leaves a comment for the Highland Park Aquatic Center on their Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/highlandaquatic
Not to mention all the pictures on their Facebook page of kids that they took.
Done.
The solution here is this: Someone needs to cause an altercation about the pool recording people, then they can't do it either.
And then somebody needs to cause an altercation because they're not allowed to photograph things... Then they'll change it back, right? All it takes is an altercation!
Just volunteer. Now you can photograph all the half-naked kiddies you want and if their parents object, you quote them the rules and eject them. ;^)
Reactions like this are addressing the asymmetrical social power of the camera.
Cameras may be ubiquitous and inevitable, and such reactions might be futile, but they certainly aren't dismissable as mere hysteria.
Furthermore, I think confronting the social power of armed cops with the social power of cameras is commendable for speaking power to power. However, extending that confrontational and/or legalist attitude appropriate for a confrontational/legalist cop to the general public makes the social power of the cameraman appear as potentially abusive as the social power of the armed cops.
So in this case it's NOT ok for parents to take pics of the kids, but it IS ok for administrators who are NOT their parents to take pictures?
I didn't suggest anything was either acceptable or not, so I'm not sure why you're off on that tangent, save that it is familiar ground for you.
I'm telling you the social dynamic of why private individuals and the general public react -- consistently and enough to fill this blog -- to the social power of the camera.
These people can do anything they want to do because the public is going to do nothing but talk,and the bad guys know that.The General Public lacks the courage to stand up and tell the comi`s what`s what...Home of the Brave....BS!
I can't wait till they have a car accident in the parking lot. Then they will ban cars too.
The reason they give seems ridiculous. Perhaps the real reason has to do with predators taking photos of the kids?
Is that a problem? The mere act of taking a photo makes you a 'suspected predator'. So what if suspected predators are taking photos? If the 'predator' is a bona fide sex offender and banned from going to places children gather, just being there is a parole violation. His photos of kids are just what he can see with his own eyeballs already. Next, they need to ban binoculars. and then glasses and contact lenses. Maybe the kids need to be required to wear full burqas and let them drown in them.
The burqa serves the exact same purpose as the ban on photography in this case, to prevent people from viewing them and therefore becoming aroused to the point they rape them.
"Participation in a recreation activity serves as your consent"
Wrong. Your likeness cannot be used in any kind of marketing/commercial material without written consent.
There have been heated discussions recently on that subject, and I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure someone sued Woody Allen years ago over a random street scene in one of his movies. It seems that the camera accidentally caught a picture of a guy who was driving around with a hottie, not his wife, and the wife sued for divorce, and the guy sued Woody Allen.
The adulterer lost.
In case it's not clear, I am NOT excusing or justifying the ridiculous policy at the pool, which I hope will be subject to endless challenges, not to mention outright civil disobedience. Government officials need to be reminded every minute that they're not God.
That's why I have a card taped to my camera that says "Placing yourself in front of my camera is consent to use your likeness without limitation"
;^)
Exactly: written release IS necessary..............
Seek legal advice, please....
I see that several have already posted on the FB page. I think it would be funny to scroll down the page where they have their photos posted, and comment on them not being allowed to have cameras in the facility.
I doubt that everyone that has had their likeness used in any major cities tourism official site has signed a written consent.
Lets just try and use some common sense.
On behalf of the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Department - We have seen/heard your comments that have highlighted an error that has been promoted and enforced incorrectly, and is not a centrally administered policy by the Parks and Recreation Department. We are moving to correct this error, and educate staff on the correct policy/law that allows patrons to take photos and videos in public facilities/open space. This error will be corrected and communicated accordingly. To ensure this type of thing does not happen in the future, we will implement better internal controls to ensure all proposed policies at our facilities are approved by both the City Attorney's Office and administrative staff prior to being implemented. This type of issue shouldn't have happened in the first place, and we apologize for any issues this may have caused.
This is the kind of prompt and courteous response that should be implemented by all public entities when unconstitutional policies are brought to the attention of the public at large. Of course it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but at least this response was not condescending or seemingly disingenuous. Thank you.
Thank you, Brad. I just updated the story with your comment.
WOW! Whatta breath of fresh air! Mr. Meyer you've earned the respect of everyone here. Your response was very timely and mature. Kudos to you sir.
Why do you give in to a handful of cry babies, who don't even use your facility, when the majority of the people are perfectly happy with cameras being banned?
It's a public pool funded with tax money, so constitutional law applies. This unconstitutional policy is equivalent to banning photography in a public park or street. And just because there's people in bathing suits it doesn't matter.
So do you believe that photography should be banned at public beaches too?
If any of the residents of this town want to ban photography then they can build their own private pool with their own rules, join the country club, or swim in their own backyards.
If you have to pay to get in than they can ban photography if they want.
DELETED.
Post new comment