We have a community access PEG TV (Public/Educational/Government) channel in our town supplied free of charge by the local cable company. We (the community) provide all program content; locally-produced tapes of events, donated tapes, including K-12 school events like concerts, plays, sports, assemblies, award ceremonies, etc.
It has become quite successful and the kids and parents really enjoy watching themselves and their friends in the school events. We encourage them to record it off the air for their personal archives. Some teachers and principals have been working with me making plans for future video projects and possibly even a video yearbook.
But just today, the about-to-retire Superintendent issued an order prohibiting the broadcast of any school events on the grounds that putting kids’ faces and sometimes names on the air violated federal law.
I can google as well as the next guy, but I am hard-pressed to figure out how to find this statute in the digital morass known as the Internet. Anybody know what statute he may be referring to? And is this something open to interpretation, or an open and shut case?
Other nearby school districts don’t seem to be bound by this, as they air their events all the time and I’ve never heard of any complaints.
I would be interested in others’ opinions on this matter, but since this is GD, I would like to find out the legal angle before getting too deeply into “what a shame” comments. However, I would like to know if your local cable channels carry school shows or have a rule against them.
I suspect the real reason behind the superintendent’s dictum is political, not legal. He has always disliked progressive technology and videotaping is a pretty scary subject to him. Nevertheless, I need to know how firm his legal stand is.
There is no federal prohibition that I know of, and I did a bit of research on this for a possible radio kids’ show.
That said, some states do have laws requiring schools, daycare centers, and the like to get parent permission to tape, record, or take pictures of their kids. There are privacy considerations involved; the usual case is when there is a non-custodial parent and a fear of parental abduction, so the child’s activities are not publicized.
It sounds like this principal is copping out; he doesn’t want to deal with the privacy concerns, so he’s hiding behind a “federal law” that doesn’t, strictly speaking, exist.
Thanks for the link, BobT, but I don’t see anything on the program page that indicates they broadcast events presented BY students. (Maybe they do – I just can’t tell from that link.)
And “many years ago” (sadly) things were different, right?
Here is part of a statement made by a local official:
MsRobyn, how would that work for a choir concert (getting permission from parents)?
Or there is indeed at least one child for whom permission has not been granted, or has even been expressly denied. If there’s a child in witness protection, avoiding an abusive ex-parent or other legal entanglements, it might be safer to simply say “No broadcasting” rather than single the child out or demand everything be edited to not show one particular child (which would make group shots impossible). It might actually put the child in danger if people start speculating who the protected child is, so the superintendant doesn’t even want to say that much.
I had a similar case when I was teaching day care - we were not allowed to take photos, nor were other parents allowed to take group photos, because one child (we didn’t know which one) was under court protection.
But as for the “federal law,” I’m afraid I can’t help you.
I say “BS.” His failure to cite the specific law makes me think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. They show events from local schools in my home town (concerts, award ceremonies, graduations, sporting events, etc.), and based on my travels across the country, I think this practice is fairly prevelant.
Now, the man may have a point about whether or not this practice makes sense, but I challeneg his claim that it is prohibited by Federal Law. If that were true, he seems to be the only school official in the country who is aware of it.
In my limited experience, permission to record is part of the consent to participate. Most of the time, the kids who participate are the ones whose parents don’t have problems with them appearing in public places. Of everyone I ever knew who participated in such an activity (I was in band and debate in high school, both of which involved recording and other publicity), I can’t think of anyone whose parents wanted their anonymity preserved. Basically, the kids I knew with that sort of problem just didn’t participate, or at least, didn’t perform in concerts. It sucks that kids can’t always do what they want, but it happens.
When we enrolled Aaron at his current daycare, I asked why parents might not want them photographed. I was told that there have been a few kids where there were cultural issues with photography, but the more likely scenario was a situation where the child’s custodial parent had a protection-from-abuse order, and publicizing the child’s activities would let the non-custodial parent know where the child was, possibly enabling the non-custodial parent to abduct the child. She couldn’t remember that happening in the time she’s been involved in early-childhood education, but she has had a few kids where that was a real possibility.
To respond to WhyNot, kids with PFAs in effect are not allowed to leave the building; they go with another class during campus walks so as not to create a negative experience for everyone. And staff does know which kids have PFA orders so they know to be especially vigilant when it comes to pickups and dropoffs. The other parents don’t know, of course; it’s none of our business.
Which is similar to an idea I was working on with several teachers. We planned to have one or two high school students interview our Town Chairman just before each monthly town board meeting, look over the agenda and describe to the TV audience what the issues and topics would be. They could then encourage citizens to attend the next meeting and express their opinions on matters that affected them. We hoped it would inform the public, create a good entry in a college application, and provide valuable training for students heading for a Poli Sci or Journalism career.
But if this prohibition stands, it’s out of the question. Another opportunity down the drain.
You know, if this guy is so close to retirement, you might petition the new superintendent to rescind the rule on the basis that the educational value of student-originated programming far outweighs what are probably minimal privacy concerns.
Yes, that would be a good route to take. We’re not sure of the policies of the new superintendent (already hired, and she will take over in August), but some of us have hopes that she will have more progressive values.
And at least two members of the school board were elected this spring on a platform vociferously opposed to many of the current super’s practices and policies (which may have been one reason for his early retirement). So even though they are not the majority, there is hope for the future.
We are a very small town where everybody knows everybody, outside influences are minimal, both for geographic and other reasons, and the very idea that someone’s face on the TV screen would provoke a sexual predator is ridiculous.
Good try super-but you got it wrong. IANAL and I can’t look up the pertinent law right now, but it is a federal law. And it could be misinterpreted as the super did.
Basicly, according to the federal privacy law (cite when I get the time) the school system has to protect the privacy of the kids. But there is an out. Names without further identifying information is specifically allowed. Can’t put names and SS numbers on the school door with room assignments (we used to back in the less stressed times), but just names are OK. There are a couple of things that the school can do so they can continue to function (at one time it was even questioned whether a teacher could audibly identify a student by name during a field trip. Then think about the classroom. Ridiculous). But if there isn’t an excemption in the law, the super has a point. I know that images of students are doubtful. Probably OK, especially if they don’t further identify the kid. Of course if written permission is obtained in advance the schools are safe.
The confluence of legal minors under government control causes some amazing legal problems.
So I think the super is wrong, but there is a law to base his concerns on.
I just talked to a spokesman for the cable company, who said he never heard of such a policy. He said schools all over his territory regularly air student events and awards ceremonies. Some channels are devoted to nothing BUT school activities. He is not aware of any pertinent law, either.
Apparently the school’s attorney was consulted by the Superintendent, and the attorney agreed with him. I always thought that was why that attorney was hired in the first place – to agree with him. Sometimes that’s how things work around here.
Just a thought, but you might contact the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association. Broadcasting associations often have staff counsel that answer just these types of questions, or at the very least, they’ve already done the research and can offer some guidance. It’d be a good idea to have clear information on the relevant law before you approach the new superintendent.
An excellent idea. And I have someone who will be contacting the Wis Dept. of Instruction (DI) tomorrow.
Because the TV station is owned by the town, not the school, the Town attorney will be contacted (but not by me). I’m afraid he will take the “party line” and fall in step behind the Superintendent, but we shall see.
The school district that I work for has a similar policy concerning public images.
When kids/parents register for school…there is a “waiver” form that has implied consent.
If the parents DON’T sign that form, the school is assumed to have permission to publish images, but NOT in a way that names could be linked with those images. In that case, there (I believe) needs to be additional permission.
The below policies are not for my district, but are examples
With regard to band/choir/orchestra concerts, school plays, and pageants, the relevant federal law is called “copyright”.
The purchase of a piece of music entitles the purchaser to fair use of the document. This includes teaching the music in class, making a very limited number of photocopies (such as the published piece came with one oboe part, but I have two oboe kids), and performing the piece in public where admission is not charged. The purchase of a piece of music does NOT include a mechanical license. You do not have the right to record, distribute, or broadcast the music. Recordings can be made for instructional purposes (such as reviewing last night’s concert or recording a school assignment), but recordings cannot be distributed to parents or broadcast on TV or radio. However, these licenses can be purchased byt the broadcaster. Does you town station purchase the licenses of the various pieces in a band concert?
Drum God, the OP has nothing to do with copyright law.
Do you have a cite for your claims that schools do not have the right to record student concerts of copyrighted works? My own experiences as a band member would say different; cassettes of performances were always made available for sale to students and family members. I assume these recordings were kosher.
Although my OP was about federal law pertaining to image broadcasting, Drum God brings up a good point. But according to a personal communication with Paul Cooper, an attorney for BMI, all cable companies carry a blanket license for copyrighted material that is or might be broadcast by community access TV channels. I am presently trying to verify that Charter Cable does that.
As far as selling or giving away recordings of copyrighted material recorded by the school, I doubt if the cable license would cover that. MsRobyn, my guess is either your school would have to purchase a “mechanical rights” license or else they just ignore it because of the smallness of the market. I am checking into this further.
President Dawn Wills of the Wisconsin Association of PEG Broadcasters told me some school districts that have video production as part of the school consider it so important that they insist that every student sign a waiver before they are allowed to participate in sports or other activities where they are likely to be photographed. The alternative is to obtain individual waivers before each performance, which sounds like a paperwork nightmare.
Another method is to have a school “opt-out” policy where, by virtue of registration, the parents give permission for the student to be recorded unless otherwise requested, perhaps as beagledave described.
I don’t know if our school uses any of these methods, procedures or policies, but I intend to find out.
I’m sure there is an argument to be made under educational fair use, at least so far as copyrighted material is concerned. This is not an issue when the material is student-produced (like a newscast or an interview show).