Student forced to remove online photos under threat of suspension
May 21, 2015 2:37 PM   Subscribe

Imagine assembling a portfolio of over 4,000 photographs and then being forced to make it disappear or face life-altering consequences; that’s the situation sophomore Anthony Mazur is currently facing at Flower Mound High School in his Texas hometown.
posted by komara (78 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
 
I wish there were more to this. It's interesting but I'm not sure what we can say about it at this point.
posted by howfar at 2:44 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


Holy crow, fuck these "educators" and everything they stand for.

Wouldn't surprise me if somewhere behind this there's a photo teacher who understands this kid's stuff is better than theirs.
posted by nevercalm at 2:45 PM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]


Ya know, I got this weird command when preparing my syllabus for the upcoming semester that I had to include a paragraph in my syllabus that said, in effect:

Do not take pictures of this class. Do not film this class. Do this and we will be very angry at you.

And I was like, *what fresh legal hell did this come from, I wonder*

I don't know if it is providing the propulsion for this Texas nonsense, but it has that weird *this came from a lawyer who knows why we're doing it* feel.
posted by angrycat at 2:47 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


So I guess the lesson is students basically have the same rights as monkeys.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:48 PM on May 21, 2015 [6 favorites]


Wouldn't surprise me if somewhere behind this there's a photo teacher who understands this kid's stuff is better than theirs.
I really wouldn't assume that. I think it's much more likely that this really is overly-zealous protection of student privacy, and it might actually be coming from the parents. Some people really are very weird about their kids' pictures being on the internet.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:48 PM on May 21, 2015 [21 favorites]


Wouldn't he have been able to post the photos if he used his own camera at a high school sporting event? I don't see how privacy comes into play at all, unless there was something other than sports photography here.
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:49 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


The one mistake the family made is to try to settle this issue through the school system. When this sort of shit happens, the proper response is to get a lawyer, and inform the principal that if he's going to make legal threats, then you're going to treat it as a legal matter, far from his home turf.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:50 PM on May 21, 2015 [66 favorites]


Here's his original post on flickr.
posted by edbles at 2:51 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


Remember when what you did outside of school was not your school's concern?
posted by Foosnark at 2:52 PM on May 21, 2015 [20 favorites]


So, I'm going to assume they've told all of the students to take down any pictures they've posted (anywhere) that were taken at school. Right? Otherwise, they don't really have much of a case.
posted by doctor_negative at 2:54 PM on May 21, 2015 [11 favorites]


Yeah, I don't understand the privacy thing. I don't think there's any expectation of privacy at public high school football game (or other sporting event), especially in Texas.
posted by Grumpy old geek at 2:55 PM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]


C.W.A.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:56 PM on May 21, 2015


Ah, the post on flickr explains. He was making money off of them, and the school does not like that.
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:56 PM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]


this sounds like an overzealous administration who wanted to monetize their own sports stuff.

but, i will say that when i was in high school there was always at least one dude in yearbook that had a creeptastic stash of pictures of the girls he was crushing on - long angle, through crowds, completely without their knowledge or consent. if anything of that sort was going on, i can see a parent threatening the school if pictures of their kid didn't come down.
posted by nadawi at 3:02 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


oh, i wonder if the principal was coming after him because of his previous entanglements with the administration.
posted by nadawi at 3:06 PM on May 21, 2015 [9 favorites]


Ah, the post on flickr explains. He was making money off of them, and the school does not like that.

Which is why you get a lawyer, who can then explain to the school district that whether or not they like it has no meaning, and if they continue to assert otherwise, then they can make the case in a proper court of law.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:10 PM on May 21, 2015 [11 favorites]


The school claimed that Mazur’s work “violated students’ privacy by posting their image".

How is this a remotely coherent or plausible claim? I used to work for a local newspaper, and I'm pretty damn sure that the sports photographers didn't get, or need to get, release forms from every player on the field at high school games. Or every student in the stands.

It just reeks of BS.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 3:12 PM on May 21, 2015 [8 favorites]


i'm guessing their argument is that they can give or revoke that permission for their students - so invited sports reporters, aok, a student making extra money on the side who may or may not have been a thorn in their side, no ok.

but since we only have his version of their argument, it's a bit more difficult to suss out.
posted by nadawi at 3:14 PM on May 21, 2015


Yeah, this is a get-a-lawyer situation if ever I saw one.

Flower Mound is a suburb in the Dallas area, there's money there, like a lot of suburbs north of Dallas. Used to be a quiet farm community, exploded as white folks moved north in search of suburban sprawl and McMansions. It's conservative and recently had a scandal about kids flashing a "white power" sign at a game playing less-white Plano East. And also pooping on Plano East's bus (to the district's credit, the kids were punished).
posted by emjaybee at 3:25 PM on May 21, 2015


Yeah, like nadawi I really wonder whether there's an angle here that they're not telling us about. For example, even totally G-rated photos sometimes get added to niche NSFW-themed groups on Flickr, and I don't think there's much you can do to prevent that; if someone discovered that a photo of their high-school-aged son/daughter had been added to a group like that, I could definitely see that triggering a fast, severe crackdown from the HS administration.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:27 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


it's so weird how quickly things change in dallas. when i was in plano it was the rich white kids who would act like racist shits when they traveled to less white schools.
posted by nadawi at 3:28 PM on May 21, 2015


I teach kids art in the summer at the college where I work and every parent has to sign a permission form allowing the children to be photographed. Some parents may have complained and that's the reason he is being asked to remove them, especially if he did it on behest of the school.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 3:29 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


Messy. On the one hand, he's a gifted photographer from the samples I can see in the link, and I understand his desire to market his work. On the other hand, there is long standing tort law that says you can't exploit someone else's image. This is particularly true overseas: in the U.S. this varies state to state. I see the school's point if he never got permission to use his classmates' images commercially.
posted by bearwife at 3:33 PM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]


The school claimed that Mazur’s work “violated students’ privacy by posting their image".

How is this a remotely coherent or plausible claim? I used to work for a local newspaper, and I'm pretty damn sure that the sports photographers didn't get, or need to get, release forms from every player on the field at high school games. Or every student in the stands.

It just reeks of BS.


In the US is is not plausible. But outside the U.S. numerous cases have found photographing teenage celebrities in public or the teenage children of celebs is a violation of "privacy". I would guess that is where they got the idea from
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 3:34 PM on May 21, 2015


If he's going to make money off the pictures, doesn't he need a model release?
posted by sotonohito at 3:34 PM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]


How is this a remotely coherent or plausible claim?

Depends on how many irate parents complained.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 3:38 PM on May 21, 2015


He also seems to be a [former?] child actor, if we're considering the "model release" angle...
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:39 PM on May 21, 2015


If he's going to make money off the pictures, doesn't he need a model release?

Depends on the situation. From his statement, it sounds like he was working as a freelance photojournalist, which means a lot of his work would fall under editorial exemptions.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:39 PM on May 21, 2015


From the posting on the flicker account:

...and claimed I violated students’ privacy by posting their image, despite the principals themselves posting pictures of the same sporting games I went to, on their social media.

Now there is no way to substantiate this, but it seems likely. I would bet that school admins, etc., have posted pictures of the events all over the place.

If this is the case, then I hope that Anthony and/or Anthony's family took screen shoots, because then something doesn't connect at all.
posted by Wolfster at 3:40 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


How is this a remotely coherent or plausible claim?

Depends on how many irate parents complained.


Which, once again, is why you get a lawyer. The voices of irate parents become a lot quieter once the school district realizes that pursuing the matter will have an actual monetary cost.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:46 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


His post said that he's been selling to parents as well. For a photo journalist is there a difference between selling to a media organization and selling to the subject's family?
posted by m@f at 3:48 PM on May 21, 2015


Which, once again, is why you get a lawyer. The voices of irate parents become a lot quieter once the school district realizes that pursuing the matter will have an actual monetary cost.

Depends on the pockets of the parents and how deep they are.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 3:48 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Hey, you know what's the best way to encourage a budding photographer with a great eye? Make him take down all his photos under totally bullshit reasoning. That'll give him inspiration!"

Fuck that.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:48 PM on May 21, 2015


There has to be some reason we're not getting for why the administrator reacted that way; some are given above (previous bad relationship, parents complaining about their children's images posted publically, or a less-likely pathology on the part of the administrator, I guess).

If these are being used extra-journalistically, though, I would think that getting individual model releases from some of his subjects would help him a lot.
posted by amtho at 3:58 PM on May 21, 2015


That was a terrible article. We have no idea what the school's position is or what their legal grounds or concerns are.

It's like it's solely designed to gin up outrage.
posted by jpe at 4:01 PM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]


It did a shitty job at making me outraged, I'm just confused and hungry.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:02 PM on May 21, 2015 [8 favorites]


It just reeks of BS.

Yes. Yes, I have a practiced ear for bullshit. And I can assure you, that is bullshit.


The one mistake the family made is to try to settle this issue through the school system.

Also this. The proper tactic with bureaucrats like this is to instantly go nuclear the first time they so much as squeak. Media - which they've now done. Lawyers. Angry protestors outside the school. The whole nine yards. You could literally get away with murder if you make a school administrator that uncomfortable.
posted by Naberius at 4:06 PM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]


"Hey, you know what's the best way to encourage a budding photographer with a great eye? Make him take down all his photos under totally bullshit reasoning. That'll give him inspiration!"


But we don't really know anything because this article does no digging. If he is serious about it, this will hardly stop him, but it will introduce him to the realities of the profession.

However, there are huge gaping holes and unanswered questions here and I don't like it.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 4:14 PM on May 21, 2015


From the article:
The real question is whether or not Anthony Mazur has a case on his hands. In his support stands Title 17 of the United States Copyright Law, which denotes that the “Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work”; in the case of photography, the individual who presses the shutter is the ‘author’.

In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states “a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.”
Fascinating. I've been told by my school that the school is officially "the author" of any work created by faculty or students on school grounds or with school property. I'm pleased that this is not the case elsewhere.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:15 PM on May 21, 2015


How is the school being unreasonable? Their argument:

The school claimed that Mazur’s work “violated students’ privacy by posting their image”.

I don't know what it's like where your kids go to school, but at my kids' school year we as parents are presented at the beginning of the school year with a photo release request form. We as parents are asked if our kids can be photographed, and if those photographs can be published. As parents we do not have to agree. As educators, the school must abide by our wishes.

I think it's an unfortunate situation, but it's also a fair and quite frankly, given that the student is a minor, and that schools are not and never will be self-organizing autonomous collectives, let along democracies, a completely common-sense solution.
posted by Nevin at 4:20 PM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]


Most schools will send home an opt-out form for parents to sign that prevents publication of their children's likeness in things like the local newspaper or broadcast on the local affiliate news. You would be surprised how many parents choose to opt out. Furthermore, model releases are for commercial use so if the student photographer in question was selling images to parents of their own children it's not a big deal but if he selling the images to be used to sell a product he needs a model release.

The whole things reeks of CYA by the principle and my guess is when cooler heads prevail the Flickr photos will go back up. At the very least the student photographer has the attention of journalists around the country and his story will make for a compelling internship cover letter.
posted by photoslob at 4:24 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


Some quick googling and I'm an instant expert on this subject.

Just kidding. But what I did find out is there appears to be no issue with him taking these photos - you can take photos of children in a public space. The issue is him selling individually identifiable photos without a release.
posted by m@f at 4:28 PM on May 21, 2015


In the US you don't require a model release for a photograph where you are selling the image as a work of art. You need it if the image is designed to sell product or is being used for stock photography.
posted by frumiousb at 4:34 PM on May 21, 2015 [12 favorites]


You would be surprised how many parents choose to opt out.

I am not surprised. There are many reasons parents or guardians may not want their children exposed: some may have been abused in the past and they don't want to open a can of worms. Some have psychological issues and the parents don't want to take any chances. Some families may actually be in hiding from an abuser who would cause serious harm. Sometimes there is a stalker in the equation. These are not minor issues and why the opt-out option is there -- and although I don't think these issues were at play in this case, there were thousands of pictures on his feed without problem and I am certain something happened that may have been at play.

Like I said, I wish I knew more and not just press release-type babble.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 4:34 PM on May 21, 2015 [7 favorites]


(assuming that the picture is taken on public property-- if the school is claiming their locations fall under private property, then I suppose it would be a different matter. But I'm not sure they can do that?)
posted by frumiousb at 4:35 PM on May 21, 2015


FOIP laws vary from place to place, but where I live a classroom is not a public space. My understanding is that rules for journalism are different than the ones for governments and public bodies (such as schools). Private companies where I live fall under a privacy act called PIPA.
posted by Calzephyr at 4:36 PM on May 21, 2015


I don't know what it's like where your kids go to school, but at my kids' school year we as parents are presented at the beginning of the school year with a photo release request form. We as parents are asked if our kids can be photographed, and if those photographs can be published. As parents we do not have to agree. As educators, the school must abide by our wish

All of which would be relevant if the school were the one taking and selling the photos. Here we're talking about regular citizen taking photos, not the school. I would expect there is no expectation of privacy at a sporting event (which is literally open to the public!) though within the halls of the school the story is probably different. The question of model waivers is perhaps relevant, but depends on the nature of the sales he's making of his photos, as others have pointed out.
posted by axiom at 4:38 PM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]


The issue is him selling individually identifiable photos without a release.

NO! Do newspapers and TV stations in Texas, or anywhere else, get releases when they publish photos of high school sports events? Or college sports events? Or professional sports events? No. Whether someone is an "accredited" media photographer or just a hack, if you take a picture of someone at a public event, you can publish that picture (or sell copies of them for publication) without getting a release from the subjects. If you don't like that, don't walk down 42nd Street, and don't play high school football in Texas. "Commercial use" would a different story. For example, putting a picture of a great sports play on a coffee mug, or a poster, and selling that. But the First Amendment provides pretty clear protection on publication of photos of people doing things in public places.

If he took pictures in classrooms, that's a different matter, since the classroom is considered a private space.
posted by beagle at 4:53 PM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]


The one mistake the family made is to try to settle this issue through the school system. When this sort of shit happens, the proper response is to get a lawyer, and inform the principal that if he's going to make legal threats, then you're going to treat it as a legal matter, far from his home turf.

My friends parents had to go that route in high school, so that my friend could graduate since they had constructively banned him from attending classes or being on school grounds for like 90% of the day. The story isn't really super important(it involved an accusation of harassment outside of school hours, far from school grounds that every witness said never happened) but it worked pretty much instantly.

The thing is, his parents were also wealthy successful business owners who were ready to pull out the super soaker of cash to solve the problem. Anyone who didn't have the capital to hire a lawyer would have been fucked.

It's not really a solution. I mean, it works if you can afford it but it isn't just "ok, problem solved, just do that". There's a lot of problems "throw money at it!" solves, and it's a really unfair solution when it's the only thing that works.
posted by emptythought at 5:01 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


Do newspapers and TV stations in Texas, or anywhere else, get releases when they publish photos of high school sports events? Or college sports events? Or professional sports events? No.

News reporting is a common exception. So if he was selling them to a news organization there wouldn't be an issue. As for coffee mugs... what's the difference between a coffee mug and a print? Or a book of photos? Or a poster? If he's taking photos of people (as opposed to events) he's entered into the grey area of the right of publicity.
posted by m@f at 5:01 PM on May 21, 2015


All of which would be relevant if the school were the one taking and selling the photos. Here we're talking about regular citizen taking photos, not the school.

My reading of the article was that the student, a minor, was taking the photos as part of a classroom project (the annual?); he traveled to sports events as part of a school activity, and the school arranged transportation.

That's my (brief) read. And in any event, presumably students have to sign a student conduct form as well, which I suppose, rightly or wrongly, gives the administration all sorts of powers.

But I still say he was taking the photos as part of a school activity, and as such it would seem reasonable that the school could demand that the photos be taken down.

If I am wrong about the context of the photos, please let me know!
posted by Nevin at 5:31 PM on May 21, 2015


Well, the one problem I see is that he's using school equipment to make money. My experience in journalism is that individuals could freelance outside their regular jobs but if they used company equipment to shoot, the pictures belonged to the company.

The writing isn't entirely clear on this point on whether he was shooting on behalf of the school or on his own.

As far as privacy on school grounds, most schools I know of, in New York, at least, distinguish between smaller spaces such as classrooms or hallways, and the playing field. The former is usually not okay without releases or at least permission of someone in authority; the latter is usually considered a public event, even though the schools claim the property itself is not public space.

There is a very weird situation involving an organization that controls field band performances that insists that no one, including parents, can take photos of their events so that it can sell photos its made. And it gets away with those rules.
posted by etaoin at 5:34 PM on May 21, 2015


lawyering up is/was/will be the only course of action here. Principals and school districts try to pull all sorts of shit until faced with the legal and financial repercussions of their playground fascism. I was reading the article, and got to the paragraph where his parents signed something and out loud said "oh, hell no!" Just because the bully has a cheap tie and a brass placard with their name on, you still never cave to bullies. Fuck all that. I'm forwarding the story to some local Dfw photojournalist friends to see what they've heard about it.
posted by dejah420 at 5:56 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


This is incredibly stupid on the school's part, but I can tell you from experience that getting rebuked or -- better! -- suspended for a free speech issue only HELPS you get into college and definitely helps you get a job in journalism. THIS KID HAS ALL HIS COLLEGE ESSAYS READY NOW.

NoxAeternum: "The one mistake the family made is to try to settle this issue through the school system. When this sort of shit happens, the proper response is to get a lawyer, and inform the principal that if he's going to make legal threats, then you're going to treat it as a legal matter, far from his home turf."

They will eventually. Usually you start with the school due process process in order to get them on the record saying stupid shit that they will then have to try to clumsily walk back in court.

There's probably some minor arguments the school can raise about him using school equipment, but in the end the school's probably going to lose.

Grumpy old geek: "I don't understand the privacy thing. I don't think there's any expectation of privacy at public high school football game "

Schools PANIC, and an awful lot of them (if they're not big urban districts or very wealthy suburban ones) have shit attorneys who don't know education law; they're just a local guy who's handled the school's contracts for 25 years and don't do education-specific work. Every year when our local Congressman sent a FOIA for the graduating class information so he could send them all hand-signed "congratulations!" notes, we had multiple parents FREAK OUT at the podium that we were handing over 18-year-olds' information to pedophiles. EVERY. YEAR. (By law, students' "directory information" -- name, address, etc. -- is typically public information unless it falls into a few weird categories. Even if they're kindergarteners.) Also when a Democratic Congresscritter sent the FOIA, we got Republicans coming to the podium to panic; when it was a Republican Congresscritter, it was all Democrats. Ideology-linked pedophilia panic!

sotonohito: "doesn't he need a model release?"

Maybe. It depends ...

frumiousb: "In the US you don't require a model release for a photograph where you are selling the image as a work of art. You need it if the image is designed to sell product or is being used for stock photography."

Yeah mostly this.

Nevin: "I don't know what it's like where your kids go to school, but at my kids' school year we as parents are presented at the beginning of the school year with a photo release request form."

Well, first, you're in Canada, right? So it's not the same. And second, American parents get these releases just because schools don't want to deal with angry parents, but in First Amendment terms, they're mostly bullshit. (Just like field trip releases of liability; if you negligently lose a child, you're getting sued, nobody cares that somebody signed a slip.)

Let your 18-year-old high-school senior sign their own field trip permission slip and see what the school does. They'll panic and refuse to accept it even though your child is a legal adult.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:25 PM on May 21, 2015 [10 favorites]


Yes, no pictures of my high school kid online, please. Meanwhile, they are posting selfies with every meal they have consumed for the last five months.
posted by Foam Pants at 6:26 PM on May 21, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'd be really curious to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer (who isn't associated with the case in any way). Most of the legal opinions I've seen on this case (not just here) appear to be from people who don't really understand the laws involved. This seems like an interesting case, and not really clear-cut. But then again, I'm just one of those people who doesn't understand the law involved. Has anyone found a well-informed legal analysis of this?
posted by primethyme at 6:35 PM on May 21, 2015


m@f: "Just kidding. But what I did find out is there appears to be no issue with him taking these photos - you can take photos of children in a public space. The issue is him selling individually identifiable photos without a release."

In the US this isn't a problem. The photographer is allowed to do this. There might be some sort of claim that the sporting events are taking place in private spaces. But that seems unlikely. Especially with football in Texas where at least some high schools charge admission to games.
posted by Mitheral at 6:47 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


This is the kid's mom's business. I think it's pretty unlikely that the family hasn't considered the PR and legal implications of their strategy here.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:03 PM on May 21, 2015


Does anyone else find it strange that the kid claims that his Texas school district allows students to read racist black sites, and anti-Christian sites, but blocks other things? This kid sounds like a libertarian in training but with so much unreported on the photo site that I do not know what to think.
posted by etaoin at 7:11 PM on May 21, 2015


overly-zealous protection of student privacy

It's not nice to take pictures of people and post them online without their consent. There are circumstances that make it okay to be not-nice in this fashion (e.g. in self-defense, like if the subject is a cop or something), but in general people should be able to not be photographed without their consent, especially when there's a risk of one's likeness ending up subject to some stupid social media PanoptiCorp's face-recognition whateverthefuck. Protecting privacy is not overzealous. I'm aware that it's very often legal to take pictures of people in public, it's just extremely fucking rude to do so without asking (at minimum, asking after taking the picture, and offering to delete it in front of the subject if they don't agree to its existence).
posted by busted_crayons at 7:29 PM on May 21, 2015 [2 favorites]


By law, students' "directory information" -- name, address, etc. -- is typically public information unless it falls into a few weird categories. Even if they're kindergarteners.

FERPA allows you to prevent publishing directory information by sending in a written request. Fortunately, almost nobody knows this unless they have a severe reason to.
posted by pwnguin at 7:51 PM on May 21, 2015


I highly doubt that privacy is the big issue here. We're talking about high school athletes. In Texas. Being recognized far and wide is part of the point. High school football games are broadcast on tv, and scores (as well as game and player stats) from across the state are in most small town newspapers and all the city papers. Maybe I missed something, but privacy really doesn't seem a very likely problem.
posted by MuChao at 8:09 PM on May 21, 2015


Personally, I REALLY don't react well to threats. If this were my kid, I would IMMEDIATELY go full nuclear and lawyer up.

Had the principal called me up and said something like, "Look, this is a muddy situation because he's been taking the pictures with school owned equipment at school events and then making money from them. There are some privacy concerns too. So we'd like him to take the photos down. Going forward any pictures he takes that he wants to sell he should take with his own equipment and it would be a good idea to get a release signed by anyone he takes a picture of." I know that, legally, I might not be obligated to do any of those things but if it's a polite, reasonable request like that, odds are good that I would comply.

Last I checked we still like to at least pretend to live in polite society which means that you have to at least attempt to try it the nice way before you treat me like an a-hole. If you treat me like I'm an a-hole from the start, brother, I will be the biggest a-hole that I can while keeping the moral and legal high-ground.
posted by VTX at 8:30 PM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]


I had an issue with a teacher that hated me for reasons (A large part was due to a weekly doctor appointment, and she took the absense as a personal slight) when she failed me the last quarter and I only just passed the class, my mother tried to fight it; from talking to the teacher numerous times as the situation was escalating to taking it all the way up the food chain from principal to superintendent. I remember sitting in the meeting and the superintendent explaining that sometimes you have to trust the teacher's gut. It didn't matter that the teacher was objectively wrong and there was clear bias (I had other student work to show as examples); it was that the system was built to defend itself. And why wouldn't it? You would (hopefully) defend a coworker or direct report over an outsider, right?

And so I would guess that's what's going on here. The lesson is that being objectively right does not matter. That people will back up the chain of command. Schools especially.

I suspect, as others had opined, he was a thorn in someone's side, and this is just the latest escalation. He needs to lawyer up, because he'll get no sympathy from the school board. And yet the video posted shows he does have an antagonistic side.... I doubt the interwebs will be kind once they see the nature of his other fight. He's probably in the right in this instance, but I don't see him being an ideal spokesperson for copyright and IP law.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:37 PM on May 21, 2015


I'm aware that it's very often legal to take pictures of people in public, it's just extremely fucking rude to do so without asking (at minimum, asking after taking the picture, and offering to delete it in front of the subject if they don't agree to its existence).

It's a football game, though. It's effectively a performance already. If I go out into the street and start juggling flaming batons, people might take pictures and I can't think of a universe in which that is rude at all.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:45 PM on May 21, 2015


busted_crayons: "I'm aware that it's very often legal to take pictures of people in public, it's just extremely fucking rude to do so without asking (at minimum, asking after taking the picture, and offering to delete it in front of the subject if they don't agree to its existence)."

That's a completely unworkable stance for news photography.
posted by Mitheral at 9:13 PM on May 21, 2015 [5 favorites]


"News reporting is a common exception. So if he was selling them to a news organization there wouldn't be an issue. As for coffee mugs... what's the difference between a coffee mug and a print? Or a book of photos? Or a poster? If he's taking photos of people (as opposed to events) he's entered into the grey area of the right of publicity."

Not really. Copyright is copyright. Publicity rights would assume that the people whose photographs are being taken have a market for selling their image, as well as that the photographs are not being taken for news or entertainment purposes — it's pretty hard, in general, to win a publicity rights suit that's not about using someone's image for advertising.

As far as restrictions, schools are generally private places that can restrict entry within reason, and sporting events fall under those auspices — a lot of places have specific licensing and venue-specific rules, often based in part on their trademark. But in general, it's more likely that they will deny you entry with pro camera equipment than make some sort of post-facto claim to your copyright.
posted by klangklangston at 9:30 PM on May 21, 2015


we really only have his characterizations that these are all pictures from games and such. would anyone's opinion change if there were pictures of practices? inside classrooms?
posted by nadawi at 9:31 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


Not much I don't think. He was working with permission at least part of the time for the yearbook. Unless there is some sort of individual veto on pictures appearing in the yearbook his images have always been intended for public view. If the school wanted to keep those places private they should have denied photography in those places; at least to people working on the yearbook. Should be "fun" to prohibit all photography at high school sporting events.
posted by Mitheral at 10:00 PM on May 21, 2015


"I'd be really curious to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer (who isn't associated with the case in any way)."

Well, I'd be money that the school didn't consult an IP lawyer.

It's my experience that most high school principals are essentially petty tyrants, who expect their decisions to stand, no matter how wrong-headed (or illegal). It's possible with an onslaught of bad publicity (and possible lawsuit from an eager pro-bono lawyer) that he'll be vindicated.

I too would be interested in what an IP lawyer would have to say about the situation.

Honestly though, this is the greatest learning experience he'll have in high school.

I look forward to the evolution of this story.
posted by el io at 10:26 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


" lot of places have specific licensing and venue-specific rules, often based in part on their trademark. "

High schools virtually never make trademark claims, in large part because most of them (yes, most) are blatantly violating colleges' trademarks that they adopted, often complete with mascot art and fight song, for convenience.

I would be shocked to see a public high school successfully assert a trademark. (Exeter, okay. Everywhere else? Ha!) Flower Mound's mascot looks like a badly-redrawn Nittany Lion. Same colors and all.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:29 PM on May 21, 2015


"inside classrooms?"

That would be a factually different situation, and probably the pictures would involve more desks and fewer infields.

I have been on both sides of this issue. As a school board member, my reaction would be, "PRINCIPAL, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO GET US SUED?????" As a student journalist and later a legal advocate for student journalists, I would think this kid has a hella solid case. My analysis would change if he were a private school student, but as a public school student, the school is on very shaky ground and the kid's argument is very persuasive. Obviously the facts matter, and Texas law matters (I think Texas is a Hazelwood state and not a Tinker state but I'm not sure), but the state is going to have to assert some pretty compelling facts here.

The only more annoying principal lawsuit-bait is when they suspend students with dyed hair. NO THIS IS WELL-SETTLED LAW STOP IT.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:40 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


" i wonder if the principal was coming after him because of his previous entanglements with the administration"

I hope not. Part of being a high school principal is that the same six kids and their families are going to spend four years trying to bait you into censoring them and creating a lawsuit. You have absolutely got to be able to treat each instance as new and distinct, and you have got to be able to enjoy the fact that teenagers want to fuck with you. Most high school principals I worked with, even the ones considered fascists by their students, were secretly gleeful when their kids walked out because CIVICS.

As for his question, it was probably off-the-shelf filtering software with very minimal in-district oversight, someone who clicked to allow all teacher requests and deny all student ones. The sites he found were probably too tiny to be included in the filter ... The KKK is obviously going to be filtered but tellingly they didn't name the black supremacy site by name, because nobody would know what it was. He sounds like kind of a dick, but 100% the sort of teenaged dickery that schools should allow, encourage, and support, and the sort of thing you should expect at least four times per year per 500 students.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:01 PM on May 21, 2015 [1 favorite]


"High schools virtually never make trademark claims, in large part because most of them (yes, most) are blatantly violating colleges' trademarks that they adopted, often complete with mascot art and fight song, for convenience."

Yeah, which is why generally controlling access beforehand is the option that schools have, and they chose not to exercise it here. Who knows if they have a generally enforced rule for photography or recordings at games — very, very few schools do in my experience — and without that, he'd have the same access as any member of the public (assuming games are open to the public, which they generally are) and the shots would come from that.

When I first started reading it, honestly I expected it to be some sort of work for hire claim, but since the district policy is to disclaim copyright, that seems pretty damn shaky too. I don't think Tinker's been so undercut that nebulous, inconsistently enforced "privacy" concerns are enough to force the kid to take stuff down.

"He sounds like kind of a dick, but 100% the sort of teenaged dickery that schools should allow, encourage, and support, and the sort of thing you should expect at least four times per year per 500 students."

Pretty much. I hope he gets over umbrage at the idea that the KKK might be blocked but not some rando Black Supremacists because of pretty reasonable context, along with the Christian persecution complex, but filtering software is generally fucking terrible and lowest common denominator so complaining about it should be mandatory for all students.
posted by klangklangston at 12:21 AM on May 22, 2015


i wonder if the principal was coming after him because of his previous entanglements with the administration

I missed this in my first run-through but ugh. I basically had to drop out of high school because the administration seriously had it out for me, and was non stop coming up with new random things to harass me for that somehow were never applied to anyone else.

I know of at least two other people who received very similar treatment, generally starting with a bit of silly minor stuff teenage behavior + speaking out against something shitty the administration was trying to ram through. Item 2 would piss them off, and item 1 and any future things would then get stacked up as reasons you were a "bad kid" and pretty quickly you're in huge trouble for using the photocopier, then the next day for the design of your talent show poster, and then...

This is depressingly, probably exactly what's going on here.
posted by emptythought at 12:38 AM on May 22, 2015


Right. If I were the coach of a local high school - say Plano East, I would get in touch with Anthony and request that he attend my school's sporting events, with the no-strings-attached use of one of our school cameras with the only stipulation being that he post the pictures on line, using his own byline, under enthusiastic titles that mention the name of the school.

This guy is a good photographer. It seems to me much to the advantage of a school's sporting division to have a good photographer taking your publicity photos. And now this photographer has just been given a raft of publicity, so there will be lots of people checking his work out on line.

You could have a very nice mutually beneficial arrangement. Anthony would get to continue using a camera and getting encouragement to take pictures and Plano East (who would be smart enough to post signs at the gate of their sporting events to mention that people bring cameras and phones to sporting events and post the pictures on line) could buy the use of the best of the pictures from Anthony for a minimal amount. And Anthony could continue to work on getting credit for work on his Sports Photography portfolio.
posted by Jane the Brown at 4:03 AM on May 22, 2015 [3 favorites]


Some people really are very weird about their kids' pictures being on the internet.

Every year, the local school system sends home a "media release" form - to all parents - in which we have to give permission for our kids' images, names, etc., to be used for any media-related purposes that happen during school hours, on school property. This includes the local newspaper or television programs (that sometimes come to the school to cover concerts, or special events) as well as the school's own website and the school board, too.

I am really proud of my kids' community participation, accomplishments, athletics, and everything else. But, I adopted my kids as older children and there is a no-contact order with their biological mother (until the kids are 18). She knows what town they live in but not where, exactly. She has, in the past, demonstrated that her judgment is not always sound due to some ongoing issues.

All three kids have distinctive first names and their biological mother would absolutely recognize them in photographs.

Every year, I sign the "no consent to release" forms. I hate doing it - for a bunch of reasons - but I also have to balance my family's privacy and their biological mother's ability to use the internet and find my kids. All three of my kids knew that I signed the 'no consent' form and they know why.

Anthony is wildly talented. I would love for him to take photos of my kids for our family. I would also hate to find my kids' photos up in public with any identifying information - including their school name, or as one image in a batch from a particular event that might tip someone off. I would hope that all of this would be resolved for him by having consents signed by parents of anyone under 18. Yes, extra work for him, but also much easier than me having to move my kids to another school, sell our house, or, worse yet, try to find my abducted children.

All of that said, I don't think I'm being weird about it.
posted by VioletU at 8:20 AM on May 22, 2015 [4 favorites]


Some people really are very weird about their kids' pictures being on the internet.

I don't understand why people who have different values than you are, and whose actions impact you in no meaningful way, are described as "weird."

But then I guess part of the fun of being a parent is that you get to be judgemental about other parents.
posted by Nevin at 8:43 AM on May 23, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Mind the gap   |   Happy To Be Here Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments