[shendison]

I'm sitting here on the plane listening to a noisy kid, that looks plenty old enough to be scolded and told to be quiet.

The mom sort of has her hands full with the crying baby, but the older kid is standing on the seat facing backwards, banging the chair, and screeching like a banshee.

I'm writing this not to complain about a crappy parent, but because I just found out that its the pilots family, undoubtedly flying for near-free! UN-BE-Lievable.



They're sitting in seat 6D and E on flight 2558 - Burbank to PDX 12/6/09 and I'm pretty irritated right now.



They had no overhead light on, or I would have taken a video and put it on You Tube.

[Silent Bob]

You might wanna add "I know it's the pilot's kid because......"

Otherwise, good luck surviving the flight. I wouldn't wanna be in your shoes... and I have in the past.

[jimworcs]

Having a screeching child is not necessarily indicative of being a crappy parent... it might be, but is not necessarily so..

Travelling with two small kids isn't easy...

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by shendison

I'm writing this not to complain about a crappy parent, but because I just found out that its the pilots family, undoubtedly flying for near-free! UN-BE-Lievable.

So just because Daddy is a pilot a small child should be held to a higher standard than any other kid? Gimme a freakin' break dude it's a kid! Even the most well behaved children have meltdowns occasionally. Get over it and yourself!

Originally Posted by shendison

They're sitting in seat 6D and E on flight 2558 - Burbank to PDX 12/6/09 and I'm pretty irritated right now.

Row 6 on all Alaska aircraft is the first (bulkhead) row in coach. A mother traveling with two small children (one an infant, apparently) would probably have been seated there anyway. And just why are you irritated? Because the kid is acting up or because it's the pilot's kid? Just forget that it's the pilot's kid because it could have been any kid. Again, getting stuck on a plane with someone else's screaming child isn't fun. Been there, done that. But there is little one can do about the situation.

Originally Posted by shendison

They had no overhead light on, or I would have taken a video and put it on You Tube.

And just what would have that accomplished? A video of a kid having a tantrum on a plane. Who hasn't seen that? Might as well post a video of paint drying. It would be far more interesting.

[Gromit801]

You could easily have been sued if you had posted a video of the child on YouTube. A plane in flight is not a public area. You would have had signed permission (models release) from the mom, and we can safely assume that wasn't going to happen.

Just because people do post things on the web they've taken with their cell phone, doesn't make it legal. Any parent finding their child on YouTube, would come after you with lawyers blazing. A couple of subpoenas, and YouTube gives up your information.

Move on with your life, is it that shallow? NOBODY likes screaming kids in a confined space.

[jimworcs]

A plane is not a public place, it is private. Therefore the rules that apply to photography are governed by the land owner (or aircraft owner in this case). The subject of photography is not entitled to privacy unless they were photographed in a place in which they could have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. It is ridiculous to suggest that this applies to a train, commercial aircraft or other location in which the space is shared with other members of the public. The signed "model release" consent is not necessary for anything except photographs to be used for commercial purposes. For editorial or artistic purposes they have no relevance.

I am afraid Gromit you are peddling myths. American Airlines policy on photography prohibits photographing their equipment, but allows personal photography in the cabin. Southwest Airlines prohibits photography or videoing after take off when the aircraft is below 10,000 feet, but otherwise has no restrictions unless the device is capable of transmitting.

Youtube would be totally awash with litigation if your myths were true. Do you understand the First Amendment?

[Gromit801]

Jim, keep to what you know in the UK. You're clueless as far as photography laws in the US go.

An airplane is private property, and as such, in this country a model release would have to be signed by anyone the photographer intends to display in public, like a newspaper or YouTube. Commercial reasons don't apply, and have nothing to do with a model release. That would be a modeling contract.

What an airline allows, it allows providing there is permission given by the subject.

Do YOU understand the 1st Amendment? It applies to GOVERNMENT censorship. Not private censorship.

[jimworcs]

Gromit,
I am afraid you are wrong. A model release is for the purposes of establishing the rules which govern the commercial exploitation of the images. In places in which the public have no reasonable expectation of privacy, you can take pictures without the signed consent of the subject. This applies even on private property, unless the owner of the private property has expressly forbidden it. If you know different, I think you should cite the law which states this.

I have read both the AA and Southwest photography policies. Neither of them mentions the permission of the subject. I would appreciate you giving me the link to the policies which state this, so that I can be corrected.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any laws which infringe on the freedoms of the press. Publication of photographs is covered by this. I am asking you to cite any law which prohibits people from taking photographs of other people, in places in which they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, without consent. Under your scenario for example, a photographer taking pictures of a celebrity arriving at airport (something which is published every day in newspapers around the world) would require signed consent. Airports are private property.

If you want to peddle myths fine.. if you want to be taken seriously, lets see you cite the laws and/or policies of airlines to back up your claims.

[Leatherboy2006]

Just was talking with a friend who is a crew member for AA and she said that AA as stated allows personal photos but not of its equiptment or staff (unless the staff agrees to being photographed). Heading to workout room soon, there is a lot of SWA crew that live in my building and would be interested to see what they say if any in there (joys of living by Love Field).
As to the OP I agree with you, I am tired of paying my fare and having to deal with someone else's unruly child (same at theatre or restraunt) I did not make the decision to have a child so why should we be saddled with dealing with them? PHX you know I love you, but telling the OP to get over it and themselves......if the parents expect everyone to put up with their kids misbehavior its time they pay some of our fare/ticket. Sorry not a big kid in public fan

[Gromit801]

Jim, how long have you been a professional photographer? I do it as part of my job as a graphic artist.

Just stop lying.

The 1st Amendment ONLY addresses GOVERNMENT censorship. Period. Private companies can censor and prohibit all they want, or have you never spent any time on internet forums? Oh wait you do. You really are befuddled.

A model release is a document that stipulates the terms under which one party may use pictures taken of another party. Most of the time, it's a brief (one paragraph) statement, although it can also be a lengthy contract full of stipulations on payment schedules, lists of permitted and non-permitted uses, legal rights and sometimes even limitations on the amount of money you can sue the other party for in the event of a contract violation. A model release can say whatever you want it to say—long or short—as long as both parties agree to it. It can also be retroactive; you can shoot first and get the release later. (In fact, sometimes photographers don't bother getting a release unless they have an opportunity to use the picture in a way that would require one.)

And remember, verbal agreements don't mean anything. It makes no difference if someone gives you all the verbal permission and encouragement in the world, the publication of an image can quickly change the mind of someone, especially if they see financial opportunity, or have been harmed in a way they didn't anticipate.

It is NOT strictly for commercial purposes.

[jimworcs]

Gromit,
Is all the nonsense in your reply a smokescreen for not answering my questions? I am happy to be proved wrong, and will publicly acknowledge you are correct IF you are able to do so. All I ask is that you cite the law and or airline policy which you think applies to this situation. It is a simple request. Perhaps as a photographer you can also explain how photographers seem able to flout the law so blatently when taking photographs of celebrities arriving/departing LAX, which is also private property. Are you suggesting they have a signed consent form from each celebrity and anyone else in the picture before publication? If not, how do they get round this law and avoid getting sued? If, as a graphic artist, you are so familiar with the law, the task of citing the law which applies should not tax you too much.

I stated in my original post, that airlines are not public but private entities. Unless the private owner stipulates otherwise, your first amendment rights to take photographs in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as an airport or airplane are protected. If the airline specifies different terms (which is it's right) then they most certainly take precedence. So far, despite my requests, you have failed to cite any airline policy which prohibits photography.

[jimworcs]

Leatherboy...

Thanks for confirming my understanding of AA policy. I await with interest if Gromit can produce any airline policy which prohibits photography on their planes. it will be interesting to see what the SWA people say. I am sure there must be one... but the majority do not.

On the issue of kids in public

I did not make the decision to have a child so why should we be saddled with dealing with them? PHX you know I love you, but telling the OP to get over it and themselves......if the parents expect everyone to put up with their kids misbehavior its time they pay some of our fare/ticket. Sorry not a big kid in public fan

Kids are citizens too. How far will you take this. I work with some disabled people who rock back and forth and make grunting noises. Should they be banned too? What about elderly people?

Dealing with kids in public is just the price we pay for living in society. I may not like being caught behind one of your slow moving funeral cortege's, but I accept it as the price of living in a civilised society. Screaming kids are no fun, but it is not the end of the world and is just part of life.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Leatherboy2006

PHX you know I love you, but telling the OP to get over it and themselves......if the parents expect everyone to put up with their kids misbehavior its time they pay some of our fare/ticket. Sorry not a big kid in public fan

I too am of the "old school" of thought that "children should be seen and not heard." Growing up I was taught when dealing with other adults in a social setting (which would include on an airplane) that you are to speak only when spoken to be respectful of others and conduct yourself "like a little gentleman." My parents were able to bring me to museums, fine restaurants and antique stores at a very early age and not worry because I was taught how to behave properly.

I realize, however, that times have changed drastically since I was a kid. I'm realizing that the children of today are being raised by the kind of people I went to high school and college with so it's no wonder they're rude, ill-mannered shrieking little terrors. I hate having to put up with it but indeed, as I told the OP, you've just got to get over it and move on. Posting a video of the kid's tantrum on YouTube isn't going to change the kid's behavior nor is it going to change the way he's being raised. Telling the parent just what you think of the situation won't accomplish that either. It's best to keep your opinions to yourself, tune it out and try to make the best of the situation. I know a bunch of you on a different thread have said you would support a ban on alcohol on flights. This is one instance where a couple of stiff belts could help immensely and no, I'm not talking about taking a belt to the kid's behind but that might be a start!

[Gromit801]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Gromit,
Is all the nonsense in your reply a smokescreen for not answering my questions? I am happy to be proved wrong, and will publicly acknowledge you are correct IF you are able to do so. All I ask is that you cite the law and or airline policy which you think applies to this situation. It is a simple request. Perhaps as a photographer you can also explain how photographers seem able to flout the law so blatently when taking photographs of celebrities arriving/departing LAX, which is also private property. Are you suggesting they have a signed consent form from each celebrity and anyone else in the picture before publication? If not, how do they get round this law and avoid getting sued? If, as a graphic artist, you are so familiar with the law, the task of citing the law which applies should not tax you too much.

I stated in my original post, that airlines are not public but private entities. Unless the private owner stipulates otherwise, your first amendment rights to take photographs in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as an airport or airplane are protected. If the airline specifies different terms (which is it's right) then they most certainly take precedence. So far, despite my requests, you have failed to cite any airline policy which prohibits photography.

There doesn't HAVE TO BE AN AIRLINE POLICY.

The right to take pictures is NOT IN CONTEST. It's what you can do with those pictures or videos that is the point, and that comes under public law, not airline policies.

[jimworcs]

Well, as you publicly backpeddle, perhaps you would like to say what law prohibits someone from taking pictures in a setting in which the subjects have no reasonable expectation of privacy? Just tell me so I can admit to being wrong.

What law requires signed consent of the subjects of pictures taken in these circumstances?

(While you are at it could you explain how photographers at LAX, which is private property, get round the law?).

I am hoping that you will enlighten us, as you obviously have such knowledge and expertise as photography is such a key part of your profession.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

PHXFlyer wrote...

I'm not talking about taking a belt to the kid's behind but that might be a start!

The case of Tamara Jo Freeman might suggest that spanking your kids in-flight can get you prosecuted as a terrorist. One version of this incident suggests that this woman's attempt to discipline her unruly children was the "last straw" for at least one Frontier Air flight attendant. Freeman was also drunk so, obviously, the airline could have made some hay out of that issue alone. I don't know if she was ultimately convicted on the assault charge (with "interfering" being the sole conviction.) One version of "throwing a drink" had her throwing bloody mary mix to the floor. As part of her sentence Freeman was banned from air travel and, as a result of her temporary incarceration, she lost custody of her children. Link to original story...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...645529,00.html

As to the incident described by the OP: Again, this may be a function of the temperment of the flight attendants. There was a case involving some unruly kids on a Southwest flight. The family had a connection in Phoenix and were banned from boarding the connecting flight. The airport police actually wound-up taking a collection so the family could have a motel room for the night. A family member paid for a flight to the final destination the next day.

If the kids described in the OP’s post were, indeed, the pilot’s children then that, rather than the temperament of the flight attendants, could well be the reason for no action being taken. However, aren’t children of employees (traveling on a pass) subject to the same rules regarding behavior as the employees themselves??

[jimworcs]

Gromit,
You have gone all quiet.. does that mean that you can't find any law which states that taking photographs of people in places in which they have no reasonable expectation of privacy is against the law? Even if you are on private property.

Will you apologise to me publicly? (if you feel embarrassed a private message will do).

[The_Judge]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

A plane is not a public place, it is private

(Stirring the pot furiously and since we are so far off topic already) I thought in another thread that airlines were public transportation?

[Gromit801]

Jim, you're on drugs. Here is what I said:

"You could easily have been sued if you had posted a video of the child on YouTube. A plane in flight is not a public area. You would have had signed permission (models release) from the mom, and we can safely assume that wasn't going to happen.

Just because people do post things on the web they've taken with their cell phone, doesn't make it legal. Any parent finding their child on YouTube, would come after you with lawyers blazing. A couple of subpoenas, and YouTube gives up your information."

That dealt with the publication of photographs without permission of the subject.

As far as whether an airliner is public or private, in the US, you have to have permission to take photos on private property. On an airliner, you still need permission. You have to have the property owners permission to take photos on private property. An airliner, last time I looked, was private property. That nobody does so, is irrelevant.

Am I going to waste time looking up specific laws? No, you're not worth the effort.

[jimworcs]

Judge, the planes are privately owned, but they transport the public.. so they are public transportation.

Gromit..
The reason you say this...

Am I going to waste time looking up specific laws? No, you're not worth the effort.

Is because no such law exists. You appear to be making up civil torts which don't exist. An owner of private property can, if they wish, prohibit taking photographs. It is not prohibited, unless the owner of the property expressly prohibits it. You can't quote the law, because no such law exists. You made it up.

You may have had a case to argue, if the airline involved prohibited photography. I cannot find a single airline which prohibits photography. So I asked you to name one US airline which did so. You couldn't do that either.

You finally threw up the red herring of requiring the consent of the subject of the photograph. This is also bogus. I can give you thousands of examples of people having their picture taken, even against their will, on private property but in a place which is accessible to the public. For example, celebrities arriving or departing at airports. If that was actionable, you seriously think that wouldn't have been tested in law by now? The reason it has not, is because there IS NO SUCH LAW.

I am happy to have a debate with anyone, but you make it hard, when you just make things up to support your argument, and then twist and turn desperately trying to justify your position.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

As to photography/videoing aboard US-registered aircraft: I suppose if a flight attendant caught a passenger in the ACT of photographing, and the passenger refused to stop, after being ordered to do so, the flight attendant/crew might be able to have that passenger arrested on a charge of "refusing to obey instructions." It would be interesting to see whether the charge would stick if the person was an accredited media reporter, and was photographing/videoing in connection with his work. However, yes, the few videos I've seen on tv (of an aircraft interior) all appeared to be done with the knowledge and consent of the crew.

The case of a woman who videoed a passenger-to-passenger (verbal) fight aboard a Jet Blue flight is interesting. The woman refused an order, from the crew, to delete the video. She was placed in a holding cell at Las Vegas airport for a few hours, then released and never charged with anything.

[jimworcs]

Butch,
You are right. You can be ordered to stop photographing and you would have to stop. However, they do not have the power to make you delete the pictures you have taken.

The problem is airline employees (and people like Gromit who defend them, making up laws as required) seem to think their powers are unlimited on their planes. Although they have far too many powers for their "pay grade", their powers are not unlimited.

[The_Judge]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Judge, the planes are privately owned, but they transport the public.. so they are public transportation.

I refer you to this, in another thread, that was never responded to.

Originally Posted by The_Judge

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-transportation/

Public transportstion refers to all service involved in the transportation of passengers for hire by means of street railway, elevated railway, subway, underground railroad, motor vehicles, or other means of conveyance generally associated with or developed for mass surface or sub-surface transportation of the public, but does not include any service involved in transportation by taxicab, airport limousine, or industrial bus.

http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/sho...8&postcount=74

[shendison]

1. I know because the mom was overheard in the airport before boarding, and the flight attendant verified.

2. The general "crappy parenting" opinion came in because she was ILL PREPARED - no toys, no distractions / books/ activities etc. and didn't even really seem to care that thihe kid was acting up and bugging others.

3. Yes, airline personel and all non-rev passengers should be (and ARE) held to higher standards because they are flying as a privilege. I'm related to some.

4. I didn't grow up believing "kids should be seen and not heard" - I leieve kids should be bhaved and parents should respect others by nsuring that they make the EFFORT. I wadn't appalled at the two year old, i was appalled that the non-rev passenger didn't seem to notice or care.

5. Videos / Pictures - legalities? Huh, don't know the law, but since i didn't post any, who cares?

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by shendison

1. I know because the mom was overheard in the airport before boarding, and the flight attendant verified.

You asked the flight attendant about personal information about another passenger? Shame on you for being such a busy-body but shame on the flight attendant as well for saying anything. There's a Yiddish word for people like you. Yenta!

Originally Posted by shendison

2. The general "crappy parenting" opinion came in because she was ILL PREPARED - no toys, no distractions / books/ activities etc. and didn't even really seem to care that thihe kid was acting up and bugging others.

It's a flight from Burbank, CA to Portland OR. Just under 2 hours long in a regional jet. How much "stuff" could she need? Perhaps she was traveling on last-minute notice and didn't have time to pack a lot of "baby crap."

Originally Posted by shendison

3. Yes, airline personel and all non-rev passengers should be (and ARE) held to higher standards because they are flying as a privilege. I'm related to some.

It was a young child acting out. Travel is stressful for adults and children alike. Children just deal with stress differently. I guess if you report it to Horizon perhaps the kid's free flight privileges will be pulled!

Originally Posted by shendison

4. I didn't grow up believing "kids should be seen and not heard" - I leieve kids should be bhaved and parents should respect others by nsuring that they make the EFFORT. I wadn't appalled at the two year old, i was appalled that the non-rev passenger didn't seem to notice or care.

Maybe not making a big deal out of the kid's behavior was a way of dealing with it. Sometimes when you make a big deal out of a kid's acting out they act out even more. Perhaps she thought if he just got it out of his system he'd eventually chill out. Maybe she had been scolding the kid since they left the house for the airport and she was just tired or lost her voice. Since you didn't post that the behavior lasted the entire flight perhaps her tactic worked.

Originally Posted by shendison

5. Videos / Pictures - legalities? Huh, don't know the law, but since i didn't post any, who cares?

Exactly, who cares? Your only complaint was about another passenger...and a small child at that. That is just something the airline has little to no control over.