to want pics of my baby off a third party business page

(192 Posts)
LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 10-May-13 13:35:02

We attended a 1st birthday party last year and unbeknownst to me, one of the people there was in the process of setting up a photography business. I had no idea she was even taking pictures but a friend has just messaged me to say there are a few pics of my then six month old baby being used as promotion on her business Facebook page.

I am fuming - she didn't even ask even though she is a friend of a friend. I keep all of my pictures private and apart from a little cameo of me and my son together in my profile pic, there are NO pictures of him on Facebook and even pics of me are mostly private (I am weird like that).

I realise she took the pictures (covertly as today is the first time i have seen them) and I have sent her a polite message to take them down. Anyone have any idea where I stand legally if she refuses. I am so not happy about my little man being used as advertising for someone else's business. I feel like our privacy has been violated when I am normally so careful.

ThreadPirateFanjoBeard Fri 10-May-13 13:47:21

I believe that if you didn't sign a model release form, she can't use pictures for business purposes. If they were just on her personal FB page that's one thing, but if she is using them to advertise her business I think she has to have your permission.

Bricklestick Fri 10-May-13 13:47:25

If you didn't sign a waiver to allow her to use the images, then she has to take them down. You're completely in the right. She has to have permission to use the images of everyone in the pictures, not just the permission of the person who had the party.

freddiefrog Fri 10-May-13 13:49:28

As others have said, you need permission to use photos for advertising.

I used to run a small business, and had some photos taken at an event that I wanted to use as advertising. I asked permission and got signed forms from everyone before I used them

badbride Fri 10-May-13 13:49:42

Are you in the UK? If so, get in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority: they have rules about children and advertising that UK ffirms have to follow. I think pics on a FB page would count as advertising.

See:www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/Parents-Page.aspx

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 10-May-13 13:52:17

Thanks guys, that's what I thought. I wouldn't be happy even if she had asked and would have said no, simply because we are private people. But to use it without asking and to make money as well (all of the pics have an advertisement with prices on in the description) just makes me furious.

DeWe Fri 10-May-13 13:52:45

Is that right? I thought if you took the photo then you had copyright?

I mean when there were pictures of Kate and Will that they didn't really want released they asked them not to rather than legally told them they couldn't.

I think morally she should take them down if you ask, she may well have thought you'd be pleased, although it would have been common courtesy to ask really. So I would start by asking nicely.

I doubt she was taking them secretly. Just more you wouldn't (or I wouldn't anyway) notice one person taking pictures at a party, I'd assume they were a relative of the birthday person and not give it two thoughts.

Fenton Fri 10-May-13 14:01:15

Blimey, I'm very surprised (if) she didn't know about this especially considering the line of business she has set up.

Not a good start to her new business is it?

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 10-May-13 14:08:38

Just had a look at her website and my little man has prime position on the 'children's portraits' page. :-( I really hope that DeWe is incorrect but I have a feeling, after a little googling, that there may be nothing I can do if she doesn't respond.

Bricklestick Fri 10-May-13 14:11:36

Is that right? I thought if you took the photo then you had copyright?

The photographer does indeed have copyright of the image they have taken - however, if you are making an image of a person to use as/in an advertisement, then you need permission of the person (who owns the "copyright" to their own image, remember) to use the picture you've taken of them.

The Kate & Will thing is a slightly different matter as the images weren't used in an advert.

knittingirl Fri 10-May-13 14:13:13

DeWe, I think that you can take photos and publish them without release forms if they are for legitimate news stories - that's why a lot of debate over the topless Kate photos was whether they were in the public interest (!) if it's in the public interest then I think you can go ahead.

But I'm almost certain that you can't just take photos of people and use them for advertising without their permission. As someone else said, if she doesn't respond I would contact advertising standards and ask their advice.

A cease and desist letter from a lawyer would doubtless do the trick.

squoosh Fri 10-May-13 14:14:24

She'd be a bit silly not to take the pictures down when asked. She doesn't want to gain a dodgy reputation when she's barely even begun.

knittingirl Fri 10-May-13 14:15:02

PS if you take a photo you do have copyright in the photo, which means that no one else can publish the photo without your permission. However, copyright doesn't automatically give you the right to be able to publish the photo. Intellectual property rights are negative rights - they give you the right to stop something happening, not the right to do something.

Fenton Fri 10-May-13 14:17:31

there may be nothing I can do if she doesn't respond.

if she doesn't respond by taking them down as you have asked then she is opening herself up to you posting on her Facebook that she has taken and used photos of your child without your permission and refused to take them off.

It's not going to look very good on her is it?

Can you tell I'm fuming on your behalf?

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 10-May-13 14:23:03

Bit more googling has revealed he is on her Pinterest page too three times, with his NAME underneath sad

She has responded to say she is on holiday and will respond properly when she gets back, but it's more than Facebook now. She's plastered him all over the internet and I am becoming increasingly upset. This is a total violation of privacy.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 10-May-13 14:24:12

Thanks everyone for the support. I wasn't sure if to the outside world I was being unreasonable, so it's good to see others would feel the same way. :-)

5madthings Fri 10-May-13 14:26:26

That is totally not ok!

Is it his full name or just first name?

A she is using them.for business/advertising purposes she should have got permission.

Yanbu.

Fenton Fri 10-May-13 14:28:23

If she has got internet connection where she is on holiday then she can take the photos down now.

Write back and say. no this really can't wait - you need to remove the photos and the name from all of your sites now. Thank you so much for your understanding <- pa

MrsFionaCharming Fri 10-May-13 14:31:13

I'd be tempted to let her keep them up. If she took them on the sly, whilst you were probably holding him, and moving around / chatting, I assume they're not great pictures. It would serve her right if she lost potential business because she used pictures she shouldn't have taken...

Thumbwitch Fri 10-May-13 14:32:08

Oh my goodness! is she completely insane? How rude and stupid, and obviously she hasn't done her business planning terribly well to not realise that she can't just do that!

YADNBU. Sorry to hear this has happened to you. I hope she takes it down pronto.

MsElisaDay Fri 10-May-13 14:32:40

I'm not an expert on advertising, but I do know the law with press photography.
As for copyright, there's no argument there. The copyright is with the photographer. You do not own copyright of your own image.

Copyright is not your argument, privacy is.

The legal wording you can quote at the photographer, if it comes to that, is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
You were at a birthday party of a friend, not a large-scale public event (think your DCs being in the background of a picture taken at the Olympics, for example). Therefore you had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I am guessing that the photographer was also on private property, rather than in an open public park or similar. They should therefore have had express permission from whoever owned that property to take photographs there.

This photographer is on very dodgy ground legally and you are right to say it is a total violation of privacy.
I would order her to remove the pictures immediately. In reality there's little you could do legally if she didn't - apart from give her bad publicity. Which she will want to do her best to avoid.

Re the Kate topless pictures - again, tricky legally.
They weren't published in this country due to our privacy laws. Other countries have more lax legislation. Plus she could be seen from a public place (albeit with a long lens) so the photographer was perfectly within their rights to take a photo while standing in that public place.

CSIJanner Fri 10-May-13 14:33:31

Report to Facebook that the image of your son is being used by a business without permission -might work even though FB reports are usually dealt with by robots.

flipchart Fri 10-May-13 14:36:44

Genuine question.
What is theproblem. Why is it such a huge issue?
A couple of a6 month old baby takena year or so ago.

I would have been proud that she thought the picture of my baby was lovely enough to be used.

BearWithBearWith Fri 10-May-13 14:37:58

Delurking to say this has annoyed me and I don't even know you!

How rude!

Have you said anything to the person who held the party? I'd be having words with them too.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now