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.

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.


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.

Wiggysgirl Fri 10-May-13 14:38:20

YADNBU I think you should also point out to her that it's a very silly thing to do. What if your DS was adopted and she has put his picture and name up?

Tell her you want it sorted now. Holiday or not she has and can easily get access to the internet and can log on to her pininterest and facebook and take them down.

Personally I would be fuming.

MrsDeVere Fri 10-May-13 14:39:14

You can report the images to FB because they are of a minor and she does not have your permission.
She sounds utterly unprofessional.

I would be absolutely fuming and I am quite free with photos of my DCs on my facebook.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 10-May-13 14:41:11

For me the problems are:
1 - We didn't know the pictures were taken
2 - We weren't asked permission for them to be used
3 - Someone is commercially profiting from images of my baby
4 - We are private people and we keep all of our photographs private - I am not one of these people that plasters pics of myself and my kids everywhere, so it is important to us that others don't either
5 - My son is a person in his own right, not just a six month baby, and he and us, as parents, should have a right to not have his face plastered all over the internet. Again, some don't mind. We do.

BearWithBearWith Fri 10-May-13 14:42:49

Would sending her a link to this thread be any good?

Perhaps give her an idea that generally some people think this is not on. Also perhaps knock some sense into her that it may have a detrimental effect to her new business. Although if she's lax on this what else is she lax/opportunist about?

YANBU. Perhaps reply that as she's away, you are happy for the pictures to be taken down within 24 hours of now rather than within the next couple of hours.

Even if she claims not to have access while away, she can certainly arrange for someone at home to get it sorted within that time-frame. Posting the photos is bad enough, but to add names as well is really unacceptable. In some cases there are reasons beyond general personal privacy inclinations (child protection/adoption/foster etc), which is why permission should be sought before making photos and names public.

Itchywoolyjumper Fri 10-May-13 14:46:44

Oh OP, this is horrible for you, I'd hate this too.
If I were you I'd get back in touch with her and ask that she removes the photos as soon as possible. She's causing you distress and the fact that she's on holiday should be neither here nor there, she really should get them off her sites.
If this doesn't get a result I would then start leaving comments on her pages.
I wouldn't want to use a photographer who'd behaved like this.

she really cant do this! if she doesnt take them down then you need to seek legal advice.

i would suggest getting written confirmation from her that she will not use your dc in any type of advertisement or on the internet.

what happens if she did this with children/people that cant have their identity revealed? there are so many things to think about when using pictures of other people.

she needs to know that she cant do this

Fluffypinkcoat Fri 10-May-13 14:50:30

Like Mrs said, you can report every picture to Facebook as being of a minor and they will take them down. This photographer sounds very unprofessional and I would be so angry in your situation.

LadyInDisguise Fri 10-May-13 14:53:31

She has no right at all to leave these pictures on the net (or any other promotional material). That's the reason why you sign a form at school for example to say you are happy for a photo of your child to be used on the website/newsletter etc... You don't have to justify why you don't want these pics to be on the ineternet.

On hols on not, I think she HAS to do something about it and I wouldn't give her the opportunity to wait and see.
In particular as she has associated the name of your child with the photo too!!

Maybe, also tell her you WILL post this information on Facebook, leave comments etc... as to how she is using your son image wo consent. See if she likes the effect it will have on her business.
In the mean time, contact the ASA. She will be asked to remove the photos.

Post the request to have the picture taken down directly on the FB page and the Pintrest page, stating simply the facts that you are his mother and that neither you nor his father gave permission for the picture to be taken, nor for it and his name to be used. smile

Chocoflump Fri 10-May-13 14:53:48

Definitely reply to her saying this cannot wait until she gets home from holiday and if they they are not removed from Facebook AND Pinterest and wherever else she has them you will be seeking legal advice.

Make screenshots of everything you see.

Review her photography business on Qype....

i would also ask her where else she has posted them... just to make sure she does get take them down

She is portraying you as a client, and using the photos as testimonials to a job well done. I would be furious.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Fri 10-May-13 14:57:23

Yanbu. Completely out of order and to use his name too, that is the height of thoughtless stupidity. If you were estranged from his father then the area of the country you live in would now be traceable due to this woman and her advertising.

hiddenhome Fri 10-May-13 14:57:51

She sounds stupid and amateurish tbh. I'd be livid if anyone did this to my dcs. I hope you manage to put a stop to this, it sounds like you will be able to though.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 10-May-13 15:00:21

she's done an odd thing, yes, but fgs give her a chance to respond before trashing a new business...

Can you email her the page ?

Sallyingforth Fri 10-May-13 15:04:48

Just to add...
there are NO pictures of him on Facebook and even pics of me are mostly private (I am weird like that)

You are not weird for keeping your pictures private. It's entirely reasonable - not everyone wants their image splashed across the web.

BearWithBearWith Fri 10-May-13 15:04:54

It's more than 'an odd thing' though. This unprofessional action could have serious consequences if the child were adopted, fostered or estranged. And I mean SERIOUS life consequences. If she wants to be a photographer she should know the legalities before setting out.

Itchywoolyjumper Fri 10-May-13 15:06:02

AitchTwo, she has given her a chance to respond - the OP was brushed off by the photographer who said she'd was on holiday and would get back to her properly later.

I would be leaving comments on her Fb and Pinterest pages until the images are removed tbh. Even if she only has mobile web access she can still remove them while on holiday.

I have allowed a photographer to use photos she had taken of ds for promotional purposes, but she asked us first and we also knew she was taking the photos in the first place. If she hadn't and just used them I would have been fuming.

ASA complaints page and the do cover promo material on FB etc. you can submit online too.

Good luck op, I hope you get them taken down and an apology from the photographer. She needs to learn the rules of her industry.

YoniMitchell Fri 10-May-13 15:07:50

That's really unprofessional of her and is compounded by her response. I agree that YANBU and think you ought to reply, giving her 24 hours to take down every photo of your child.

It sounds like she's pretty clueless about what she can and can't do - she'll need to wise-up pretty sharpish if she's to see her business grow.

NotSoNervous Fri 10-May-13 15:08:14

YANBU I would be furious. I would report her to FB and if be tempted to make an appointment to get some legal advice. I'm like you that I don't put pics of my DD on the Internet they are private and no one else has the right too either

LimitedEditionLady Fri 10-May-13 15:08:29

Id be absolutely livid.fuming.if that woman had used my childs picture without asking she would wish she hadnt.i hate it when people put pics even on bloody facebook without asking.dont do no no.and be going bonkers telling her to get it done RIGHT NOW.

CSIJanner Fri 10-May-13 15:10:12

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

The photographer did not ask for parental permission. That's what's wrong full stop. Many schools do not allow photographs of their students due to protection issues. I'm not saying that's the case here at all as LadyG has made it clear its because of privacy, but the photographer didn't know if the parent had been in a DV relationship and had relocated for the families safety, or if the children were part of a contested adoption for example.

As it was a private party and without specific parental permission, the picture should not be used, more importantly it should not be used with his full name underneath.

And I agree with Fenton - if she can answer emails and FB, then she can remove the photos. She should start with removing his name from her website.

JenaiMorris Fri 10-May-13 15:24:52

I have no issue at all with photographs of my child being published. We're not in hiding or anything, he's not a secret and there's nothing anyone could do with those pictures that could harm him.

However it was astonishingly rude and bloody stupid of this photographer to use pictures without your permission.

Get some legal advice. Because I'm not at all bothered about photos being public but I would be bothered about the cheeky cow using my child as a free model, I'd say she could continue to use the photographs in return for a fee.

As you are bothered, then she should remove them.

I'd also ask for some prints of any particularly good shots, as a gesture of good will. And soft copies.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Fri 10-May-13 15:28:47

I will wait until she returns from holiday as she might just be on FB on her phone and I don't want to make it too difficult. It also runs deeper than just Facebook now - we have Pinterest, her own business website, photography directories and business sites and even Google images now, so there has been a systematic violation and it is going to take time to deal with. That's what I've found so far, all screen dumped with my lovely baby circled.

I am very angry but I will give her more time to sort it out, simply (and only) because she is the friend of a long-term friend and I can't think of anything worse than all out war at the minute. We will take the polite route, hope she realises her grave mistake and removes ALL images and identifying features and say no more about it other than don't do it again. We personally are not friends but I would prefer to avoid conflict if possible. If she doesn't just take everything down and apologise, then we will have a serious problem, friends or no friends.

SirBoobAlot Fri 10-May-13 15:31:55

Yes she was silly and rude, but really all these suggestions of ruining her business are OTT.

If she's on holiday, she may only have access via phone, or it may be an automated message.

Allow her the opportunity to rectify things before completely exploding.

Susandeath Fri 10-May-13 17:06:05

Some children are under child protection orders, or your child might be adopted. These children are not allowed to have pictures published in newspapers or on the internet. She must take the photo's down when you request - I am very pissed off on your behalf!

AvonCallingBarksdale Fri 10-May-13 17:14:42

I post quite a lot of photos of the DC on t'internet when I choose to and I'm quite relaxed about this. However, I would be fuming if I was you. She's printed his name?! Totally unprofessional, let alone publishing photos without asking you!! YADNBU

Maggie111 Fri 10-May-13 17:16:36

She's been naive and stupid but I don't think she's intentionally trying to sneaky. I'm convinced once she finds out it's a problem she'll remove them as quick as she can.

Don't stress yourself out about thinking "what if" she wont - it's very unlikely.

MrsSpagBol Fri 10-May-13 17:16:44

sirboobalot I hate that you are minimising this!!!

Have you not read the previous posts detailing why some children need to be protected from this rckless behaviour for reasons of safety, as well as privacy.

"Silly and rude" is trivialising a huge, huge mistake.

If she is so serious about her business why didn't she do the proper research into what she is and is not allowed to do, like any normal person starting a business?

In what world would a grown adult think it is ok to post pics of someone else's child without the express permission of the parents? It takes 2 seconds to google the issue and "model release form" comes up about a zillion times on a basic search.

Safety issues aside, did she REALLY think she wouldn't have to pay any promotion costs?! Why does she think other people have to pay for models, logos and images etc etc for their busness websites for?

I hate it when people try to justify the unjustifiable.

If she can reply that she is on holiday she can get sufficient internet access to take the pics down. Her response was beyond flippant.

i agree mrsspagbol

Lilka Fri 10-May-13 17:29:39

Facebook's policy is that parents can request the removal of any photos which show their child, as long as that child is under 13.

So report to Facebook and the pictures will be removed for you, thank goodness

My children are adopted and I find this behaviour totally out of order and reckless. And unjustifiable.

MrsS - I don't think that's what SirBoob was doing. She is probably right too - it's much more likely the photographer is a thoughtless person than a malicious one, and highly possible the response may have been some variety of automated one.

Yes, she's fortunate that the only harm done was raising the OP's stress levels rather than causing a CP issue, but why not allow her time to learn from the mistake and make amends. It could well be she didn't bother with permission as a) she was hoping for some free promotion and b) doesn't understand the rationale behind it.

Of course, if she is an arse about the problem when she does return from holiday then yes, at that point 'name and shame' is fair enough.

MrsSpagBol Fri 10-May-13 17:48:42

Moonlight we cannot prove that the email was an automated response as neither of us have seen it. You also can't tell me that SirBoob is "probably right" as we don't know the photographer and I assume you don't either.

I also never said she was malicious anywhere.

Nor did I say name and shame was the only action to be taken. i just felt that SirBob didn't think the issue was that serious. I, on the other hand, think it isvery serious. Calling it "silly and rude" is minimalistic. I prefer "reckless and irresponsible" as that is my view.

As for "hoping for some free promotion" - that is even more ridiculous. If you want free promotion, you ask for it. You don't run a business by just "hoping" or by "not understanding the rationale behind" something that is bloody obvious to the average person!

I feel very strongly about this (can you tell?!) because I have started my own business and faced the issue of start up costs etc but I didn't just "hope" for anything - I went to great lengths to try to educate myself about the rules and regs of my industry. Eg I didn't just think well I'll mislabel or not label my food because it's an extra expense for me and i'll just "hope" no one has a food allergy hmm.

Anyway seems OP has decided on a way forward.

ThreadPirateFanjoBeard Fri 10-May-13 17:53:18

Theoretically, you could also ask for payment for the use of your son's image for commercial purposes since you didn't sign a release form... I bet your DS is EVER so expensive. Joking aside, this isn't about copyright it's permission to use a photo of a child for advertising. She needs permission and hasn't sought it. She has also named your child without your permission. I would say if it's not down within 24 hours you will consult a lawyer. I would also be tempted to put a note on pinterest and anywhere else stating that you didnt do a shoot and haven't given permission. Bear in mind pinterest images can be repinned by people, she is o wry dodgy ground here.

ThreadPirateFanjoBeard Fri 10-May-13 17:54:13

*on very

CloudsAndTrees Fri 10-May-13 18:02:46

I am outraged on your behalf and I think you need to report the pictures to Facebook and Pinterest.

She could do it from holiday if she wanted to. Any decent person that realised they had acted in such an unprofessional and violating way would make time to sort it out. She can't be in that far flung a destination if she responded to your email, so if she had any respect for you and your child she would do it now.

You are being remarkably calm, well done you! In your position I'd be linking to the website, Pinterest and FB pages and asking MN to bombard them all.

JenaiMorris Fri 10-May-13 18:41:50

But there are no child protection issues! The 'what ifs' don't apply here. The photographer was unwise - it probably didn't even cross her mind that this could be serious. Which is foolish, but not a hanging offence.

SirBoob is being eminently reasonable.

Aside from the privacy issue, which is the one the OP is bothered about, this is also clearly false advertising as the photo is being presented as if it was taken on request as a "portrait"...

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 10-May-13 18:59:46

I would be fuming seriously fuming.

And yes it is against the law to use them in the way she has.

bionic77 Fri 10-May-13 19:04:12

This is an invasion of privacy so you could email her back and ask her to remove them within X time period. If she fails to do so tell her you'll complete I think it is an N16a form available from the County Court and you'll lodge a claim against her. This will probably focus her attention sufficiently to address the issue.

If you did have to lodge a claim it would cost you about £40 but you would get this back if your claim was successful.

Obviously you want to negotiate this amicably not only because she is a friend of a friend.

Wibblypiglikesbananas Fri 10-May-13 19:12:19

I would be livid, she sounds ridiculously naive and completely unprofessional.

I would email her, and post on her FB page, demanding that she remove the pictures she covertly took of your DC as you have NEVER, at any time, granted her permission to use them for any purpose whatsoever.

I would also report the pictures to FB and ask that they are removed.

I have no idea re the legalities here, but should she refuse to remove them, I'd be looking at getting a solicitor involved.

I'd also get in touch with the friend who held the party as there may be other people in the same position as you - does this friend even know her child's party was used in this way? It reflects badly on them even if they didn't.

Finally - never mind that she's on holiday. Get in touch today. If it's riled you enough to post on here, you shouldn't wait.

MrsSpagBol Fri 10-May-13 19:26:06

JenaiMorris - are you actually serious!

"The photographer was unwise - it probably didn't even cross her mind that this could be serious. "

REALLY?! Then what did cross her mind when she set up a PHOTOGRAPHY BUSINESS?!

I can't bear the minimising!!

RainyAfternoon Fri 10-May-13 19:27:44

Unfortunately, if you want to have some control over how far these pictures are spread you really do need to act immediately. Pinterest pictures can be downloaded by anyone, so the longer they are up there the more people will potentially pin them to their own boards. So after a little bit it will be impossible to delete all of the photos on the Internet. I would get back in touch and explain that as you don't want to risk strangers downloading a photo of your baby you need her to take them down immediately. Good luck.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 10-May-13 19:38:46

i can't bear the over-reacting, tbh.

the OP is being perfectly reasonable, of course. the photographer woman is wildly in the wrong, and should be taking this very seriously, but all talk of ruining her business is vindictive and nutty, when there are no CP issues etc. Doing this could have caused problems for a victim of domestic violence, but that's not what's happening here.

Like i say, the woman is wildly in the wrong... but you do have to give her a chance to sort it.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 10-May-13 19:39:27

I would report to FB and Pinterest, though.

StuntGirl Fri 10-May-13 19:40:52

I'd be very annoyed, simply due to the absolute lack of basic consideration she's given you. She has obviously done bugger all research before setting up her business, as this is pretty much Photography 101.

I would reply telling her I would like the photographs removing by X date and for her to respond confirming when she's done it.

munchkinmaster Fri 10-May-13 19:42:50

I'm sorry but you'd have to be so stupid to do this. Today I took some photos of ds on a merry go round and missed a couple of times so got the kid next to him. I felt a bit bad and will delete those pics. The very idea you'd take pics of a strangers child and publish them on the web. That's not a naive mistake but real stupidity.

Cosmosim Fri 10-May-13 19:54:44

I disagree that this isn't malicious. A photographer covertly takes photos at a friend's private children's party and claims these as examples of past portrait commissions? She's saying they were her customers. They didn't even know about it. Completely malicious to claim someone to be your client and use it for self promotion.

Iamsparklyknickers Fri 10-May-13 20:03:41

I have to say the email reply sounds like an out of office auto-reply to me - not a brush off. I would guess she's making a point of not checking her emails whilst she's away.

Regardless YADNBU, I would try emailing facebook and pininterest to see if they'll remove the pictures for now and write her a snotty email informing her of the concept of consent.....

I'd be fuming and I'm someone who does out pics of ds on fb. She does not have your permission and knows nothing of your situation. I'd also be having a word with your friend as "someone" has given her your ds's name...

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 10-May-13 20:22:05

The photographer does not know that there are no child protection issues things like that are by nature very private and rarely announced to all and sundry.

What "business" Aitch? She has no customer or clients to show to, which is why she is using pictures taken covertly at private events. I would not call that "business" to be honest!

Any quack can call themselves something and set up a website, does not make it a legitimate business, and does not give the person the rights to continue!

fengirl1 Fri 10-May-13 20:49:35

OP, a complete divergence, but do you have WG? If so, would you be kind enough to PM me some time?

Floggingmolly Fri 10-May-13 20:55:53

She put his name beside the photos? shock. Why????
She is absolutely not allowed to do this; I remember being hounded to sign an image release form by a children's entertainer to allow him to use photos from the party on his website. He insisted I was the only one ever to refuse hmm, but he knew well he couldn't publish anything without one.

CSIJanner Fri 10-May-13 20:59:02

Agreed with Quintessential - FWIW it's not actually a business yet as she's just starting out and relying on the goodwill of the parents from the party not to complain or to get her to pull the pictures as they weren't commissioned portraits.

Actually, isn't that misrepresentation for potential clients?

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 10-May-13 21:01:39

"QuintessentialOHara Fri 10-May-13 14:54:50

Review her photography business on Qype...."

suddenly it's not a business? okaaaay.

After hearing more, it seems it isnt!

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 10-May-13 21:11:44

so it's not such a huge threat, then? realistically very few people have seen the photos, you can't have it both ways.

Are you addressing me there Aitch?

Even if this woman was to take down the pictures, they will still be available online in the Wayback Machine which stores snapshots of websites and urls at any given time.
Whatever goes online is really hard to eradicate for good. This is why uploading photos of other people, especially children is such an issue. They leave digital imprints, and taking the pics down, it may be too late?

Kiriwawa Fri 10-May-13 21:17:23

Totally unacceptable. Not least because if you have a DC with child protection issues, a child's birthday party should be somewhere where you can relax. Not worry that one of the other guests is going to be flogging photos of your kid hmm

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Fri 10-May-13 21:30:41

at no point have i said what this person has done is right, btw. it's completely wrong.

Floggingmolly Fri 10-May-13 21:30:43

Can that be accessed by the public, Quint?

Yes, here it is: the way back machine

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Fri 10-May-13 21:38:25

Apparently model releases etc are not required if you are using photographs of people to show your own skill...

Floggingmolly Fri 10-May-13 21:41:57

I never knew that! shock. It's really scary to think everything is still there, totally accessible.

Heebiejeebie Fri 10-May-13 22:26:19

What possible harm or risk is there ? A lovely picture of little Jimmy age 6 months. Why the ginormous fuss?

WhitesandsofLuskentyre Fri 10-May-13 22:44:59

She has no right to use them for any commercial purposes, be it party planning, photography, whatever. And if she isn't aware of the rules governing model releases, then heaven help her business...

The sensible thing in these situations is for the host to say "I've got a photographer coming, she wants to take a few photos. Do you mind?" and let people opt out. It's what schools/girl guides/ballet schools all do.

Very naive of her.

MrsS - just to respond to the main points (as I read them) on your post:

No, not assuming, hence the 'probably' comment.

Agree, you never mentioned 'malicious' but that is what your post implied to me.

You reference "minimising" several times - I don't think anyone is minimising what's happened, just agreeing with the OP that allowing the photographer time to respond is fair, rather than jumping in all guns blazing in relation to the incorrect/inconsiderate/chancer actions taken by someone who is (charitably) naive at best.

The "hoping for some free promotion" comment was meant to infer that this individual was not professional enough to ask the involved parties as she feared incurring a charge of some sort (whether freeby photos or hard cash) - she hoped that she would get away with just using the photos without having to do so.

No, you shouldn't run a business on that basis, but that doesn't mean people don't try to. (Although they tend not to last too long when they do...)

Yes, you put in a strong foundation for your business, so it has a better chance to survive, but, frankly, a lot of people don't.

DoubleLifeIsALifeHalved Sat 11-May-13 02:43:30

Wow, disrespectful of your rights and responsibilities as a parent, against the law which she should know as its her profession, ignorant or willful depending on her level of selfishness / stupidity.

I would get onto Facebook & Pinterest ASAP in order for them to get started on taking the images down. If she thinks that's over reacting, well, that's her problem.

Enfyshedd Sat 11-May-13 06:52:46

I'm a member of a photographic club, and one of the big things that all memers are aware of (and are given information about) is what is classed as public or private spaces, and what is best practise (or in another term, "morally" right).

To me, this smacks of poor research and a lack of basic common sense by the photographer into her chosen "career" (or sideline which I think may be most likely). If she'd have even mentioned to some of the parents at the party that she was setting up a business and would like to take some photos, I'm sure most of them would have been happy to help. Certainly a good gesture on her behalf would have been to offer some small prints to the parents as well; I'm sure some parents probably wouldn't have even minded chipping in the odd 50p to cover the cost of the photo if it actually was good.

I had to sign a release form for DD & DSS2 when I took them to a play event at our local church at Easter - the photos are posted on FB and occasionally for promo material/presentations and are only used to show the day or activity taking place, but at least it makes people aware a camera will be present. In the event, of the photos loaded to FB, DD is in none (10mo at the time so constantly being carried/fussed over by me) & DSS2 is in a couple of group shots, and I noticed that most of the single/pairs shots are of the children of the people most involved with the church.

IME, FB have been quite quick in the past to deal with FB pages set up maliciously (was previously on the committee of a club and once had to report a page to FB which had been set up by a disgruntled former committee member - was removed with a couple of days) - hopefully they would be the same with the pictures. However with all the other stuff you've found, I would consider legal advice as it's going to be a bitch for the photographer to sort it all out and she really needs a kick up the arse after being so stupid.


In my work if we want to take pics of ANYBODY, not just kids, we have to get them to sign a photo permission form or they can't be used. Simple.

SwishSwoshSwoosh Sat 11-May-13 07:02:53

I don't think you should wait til she is back from holiday. This person has made a serious error of professional judgment and needs to deal with it.

I would respond to her that you have found lots of images and are seeking legal advice.

I am astounded she has included a name! Is it first name only? I would be raving.

CSIJanner Sat 11-May-13 07:06:49

LadyG - what does your friend think of this? The one who held the party?

AllSWornOut Sat 11-May-13 07:52:39

I'm another one who thinks you'll probably need legal advice to sort it all out due to the nature of the internet. If photos are already showing up on google image search it might be difficult to do a proper clean. As someone pointed out up thread there are archive websites and caches where these photos will be stored.

You need to get her to act asap to minimise the damage. A legal threat might be what she needs to get her to take this seriously.

You don't need to destroy her business, but quite frankly she's going to have to learn to behave significantly more professionally than that if she wants it to be a success.

Pseudonym99 Sat 11-May-13 07:58:49

What she has done is illegal under the Data Protection Act, as she has used personally identifiable information (an image) which identifies you without your knowledge or consent.

krasnayaploshad Sat 11-May-13 09:27:04

My DH is a professional photographer so I thought I'd post to clear up a few myths.
1. Difference between this & the photos of Duchess of Cambridge appearing in the papers. For editorial photos - ie, in the news, model releases are not required, different rules cover press photography. The Duchess can take action on invasion of privacy grounds. Her photos were not used to advertise something.

In the OPs case, the photos of her son are being used to advertise something & that means a model release is always required. My DH always has to obtain model releases whether the photos are being used to promote his own business or if the photos will be used by the client to advertise their own business, eg, a fashion brand & models wearing the new season's clothing range.
A model release is required regardless of how old the person is & in the case of children will be signed by a parent or guardian

2. I don't think anyone can claim whether or not this woman is running a business yet, for all we know she might already have clients. Regardless, her intention is to run a photography business & for that reason, she needs to read up on the laws covering her profession. DH comes across this regularly nowadays, anyone with an expensive camera thinks they can turn professional at the drop of a hat (I'm also thinking of that thread the other day with the bad photos)

3. Public & private spaces in this situation are irrelevant. Even if the photos are taken in a public space, the photographer must still obtain a model release.

OP, YANBU to be upset, I would be too. I think you should take immediate action to get the photos removed from every place she has posted them (has she tweeted them as well?). As others have said, it won't hurt to contact FB & Pinterest too. Let us know how it all goes.

MidniteScribbler Sat 11-May-13 23:53:18

Buying a fancy camera and setting up a facebook page doesn't make someone a photographer. It drives me nuts all these mummies that get a fancy camera for christms, take a few average photos that people make some polite comments about, and suddenly they're touting themselves as a "professional". Anyone with any formal training knows what releases are required and when. She needs a big wakeup call about how to act professionally and ethically if she truly wants to run a business.

pigletmania Sun 12-May-13 07:45:22

Yanbu that is very unprofessional. She should have asked and got you to sign a form if you agreed

whoopwhoopbib Sun 12-May-13 08:10:45

To those who have said that as there isn't a cp issue with this particular child it isn't a problem - what happens next time she decides to do this and it does involve a cp/adoption case?

If the op doesn't come down hard on her now she will think that it is ok to continue publishing photos of children whose backrounds she has no idea of.

As others said when you intend to set up a new business you research it thoroughly first and if you don't then you have to deal with the consequences.

I think her reply was very blase but I do understand why the op feels as though she should wait until they are back from their holiday.

Cherriesarelovely Sun 12-May-13 08:12:15

Of course Yanbu. It is, frankly, astounding that this woman wasn't aware how inapproriate her actions were bearing in mind she is setting up her photography business. In your situation Iwouldn't mind if I had been asked but that is not the point, you are not happy and you have every right to object. I hope she responds swiftly now (holiday or not) and that she learns from this.

fuzzpig Sun 12-May-13 08:23:23

She's been a complete muppet. Hopefully she will sort it out as soon as she can and this will be a huge wake up call to the fact that she needs to follow the rules (not to mention common sense!) if she is to be seen as professional.

Fuckwittery Sun 12-May-13 08:34:36

if she is replying to emails, i would ask her now to confirm that as soon as she gets back from holiday she will remove, so you can consider what action to take if she doesnt.

Euphemia Sun 12-May-13 08:48:33

What possible harm or risk is there ? A lovely picture of little Jimmy age 6 months. Why the ginormous fuss?

Are you really that naïve? There could be child protection issues the photographer is unaware of, genuine reasons why it is inappropriate and potentially dangerous for this child's image and name to be online.

"Random they-all-look-like-Churchill-anyway snap of a baby at a birthday party" is one thing, what this woman has done is in another league.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Sun 12-May-13 11:02:08

yep, the name thing is pretty extraordinary, i agree. this woman is a piece of work. still wouldn't go slagging off her business online until she's had a chance to fix it, though.

what does the person who hosted the party think, OP?

Bogeyface Sun 12-May-13 11:08:54

What possible harm or risk is there ? A lovely picture of little Jimmy age 6 months. Why the ginormous fuss?

Say that to the children my friend deals with in her work who have had to move to different areas of the country 3 times because some fucking muppet thought that the "no photos at school events" rule didnt apply to them and put them on the internet.

These children are in real and serious danger of harm if their birth family find them, any photo like the one the OP describes would be enough to necessitate another move.

Sometimes a simply picture at a birthday party can have the most devastating consequences. The OP's child isnt in that sort of danger, but the stupid photographer doesnt know that does she? Thats precisely why there are rules about needing permission etc.

verygentlydoesit Sun 12-May-13 11:13:44

I think you should politely request that she finds an Internet connection today and removes the images. Failing that, she should contact someone back home and ask them to do it.

She has messed up. She needs to fix it as a matter of priority.

AitchTwoOhOneTwo Sun 12-May-13 12:36:00

yes but bogeyface that IS NOT an issue here, so while i understand that it is the MN Way, there really is no point in pretending it is just so that we can get our knickers in a knot.

Bogeyface Sun 12-May-13 12:58:14

I'm not getting my knickers in a knot, merely pointing out that a "professional" photographer could be reasonably expected to know that you dont just take random shots of anyone child or otherwise, and post it on the internet without their permission.

My example was merely a worst case scenario.

OxfordBags Sun 12-May-13 13:03:59

OP, I don't want to worry you further, but if his pics are on Google images, that means that anyone, anywhere in the world can view them and use them for themselves.

Every day you allow her to fob you off with the holiday bullshit is another day wasted. Wherever she is on holiday, she can go to an internet cafe or find wifi somewhere, access these various accounts and delete those pictures. It is so simple to delete pics off Fb and Pinterest, for example.

What she has done is illegal and also morally dubious. Personally, I would be contacting a solicitor for advice. It might be that the police would be interested. Putting them on her Fb is bad enough, but plastering them over the internet so much that they get on Google is serious stuff. I know she's a friend of a friend, but if that friend is a true one, she will be on your side 100%.

pigletmania Sun 12-May-13 13:07:55

I have read te rest of your pets op an I am shock, is this woman nuts. Did she not do any research before setting up her business. What plant is she from! Not only has she not asked for written consent to use te images, but she has plastered pictures of the op ds on the world wide web with his name on. This is also a data protection issue. Not only that, but as others have sad their coud be issues with the child and family. Its one thing to put a picture or two of a birthday party up on Facebook, but to use that image in your business sites and not gain permission is unacceptable and unprofessional

foslady Sun 12-May-13 13:30:55

Sorry you are going through all this OP - I'd not only be angry but in my case worried sick. There are no CP issues with my dd, but her father and I have a blanket 'no photo's on the internet' agreement. It would have caused major issues for me.

Olivette Sun 12-May-13 13:32:49

I haven't read all of the replies, so not sure if this has been covered already but once google has seen the picture and it is on google images it is copied onto their system and it's not as simple as the photographer simply removing the photo from google images.

Iamsparklyknickers Sun 12-May-13 13:37:57

Reasons 'why' don't really matter, no is a complete sentance and all that.

We have ownership of our images and that's it. Nobody else gets to decide what is and isn't an appropriate use of our private photos. Simple as that.

BenjaminButton172 Sun 12-May-13 13:45:14

Luckily child protection isnt an issue here. How was the photographer to know this if they didnt ask permission?

Lucky this time but what about the next time the photographer does it.

Wowserz129 Sun 12-May-13 14:17:09

Most people know who aren't even interested in photography you can't go around taking photos of other people's children and use them without permission. Nevermind if you claim to be a professional! I would message her and say you want all traces moved now or you will take it further.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 12-May-13 14:29:08

Errmm nobody 'owns' image rights of themselves unless they took the photo and it is perfectly legal in many circumstances to take photos of anybody and publish them without permission.

Whilst it may get you a smack in the mouth from a irate parent its still legal

The reason why this situation is not legal are mainly due to it not being in a public place.being used to advertise and including the child's name.

Raum Sun 12-May-13 15:18:09

If she doesn't remove them pronto, name and shame on here..

fledtoscotland Sun 12-May-13 15:34:22

I would be livid. There are huge issues here. The photographer doesn't know if the child is on the at risk register and needs to be protected. By publishing photos without consent, she is violating his privacy. I would go to every site that she has published the pictures and inform them of this. Tell her that in her absence you have dealt with it.

Summerloading Tue 14-May-13 08:54:53

Is there an update, OP?

Actually, you can take shots of whoever you want - children or adults - without permission (although its good practice to ask first). The only thing that the photographer has done wrong, is to use the shots for advertising and to use the child's name.

Euclase Tue 14-May-13 09:21:51

I'd be livid too, absolutely no pictures of my dc go on the net. A friend took some pics of the dc playing together with hers and she started to upload room Facebook straight away.

If I hadn't of asked what she was doing, they would have been uploaded. Fortunately I asked her to stop in time and she didn't put them up but I did get a few hmm looks from friends. But I don't care, I don't want pics of the dc anywhere on the net.

In your situation I would be getting a solicitors letter pronto !

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 12:57:29

Hi everyine,

I think she must be back from her holiday as I have just received this contemptuous response:

The photo's have been removed.

Could you please ensure that you and anyone who may have a copy of those images delete them, as I retain full copyright for any images that are not used for advertising and promotional purposed unless they are paid for.

Many Thanks

:-O I am beyond livid and just composing myself for the response.

Summerloading Tue 14-May-13 13:00:28

No apologies, coupled with a threat shock [anger] ????

Smellslikecatspee Tue 14-May-13 13:05:33


Unreal, the attitude!!!

Include a copy of the Data Protection Act in your reply

maddening Tue 14-May-13 13:07:31

Sounds like she isn't worried about upsetting her friend's friends!

I would reply

Thanks. Please ensure that you fully delete any images you hold of ds.

I am not aware of anyone taking a copy but I am retaining screen shots taken of your website and advertisements as evidence.

Please be aware I will be checking periodically to ensure they have been removed and do not reappear.

fuzzpig Tue 14-May-13 13:15:32


BeautifulBlondePineapple Tue 14-May-13 13:18:07

How rude. She's obviously not aiming for word of mouth recommendations!

When you do reply, you could also point out to her that the plural of photo is not photo's.

JenaiMorris Tue 14-May-13 13:20:16

Oh well she can fuck right off then.

Is it worth contacting the ASA or someone? Is she a member of a professional organisation/guild?

Thumbwitch Tue 14-May-13 13:25:09


The barefaced CHEEK of the woman!! OMG. OMFG. I'd be hopping mad, literally, I would be hopping around from foot to foot with wanting to DO something really bad to her.

Fucking cheeky bitch.

Thumbwitch Tue 14-May-13 13:25:36

that would be angry then at the end of all the shock...

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 13:31:26

Yes I think everyone gets how I am feeling - I am so mad I cannot concentrate on anything else. I have just drafted a response and sent it to my DH for approval. I was willing to be so reasonable and now I feel like if I can sue her ass off I will.

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 13:31:58

I think you need a very strongly wordered response mentioning:

parental consent
data protection act
false advertising
model release form


She doesn't seem to have grasped the issue.

I think the point needs to be made that her behaviour is not ok, for the sake of preventing her from doing this ever again.

ps - I feel vindicated Moonlight et al

hiddenhome Tue 14-May-13 13:34:35

Follow her around the internet and make sure you leave negative feedback wherever you can wink

JenaiMorris Tue 14-May-13 13:35:53

My professional organisation/guild idea is a good one btw!

If she claims on her website to be a member of one, it would be worth contacting them, partly for advice but mainly to grass her up.

quietlysuggests Tue 14-May-13 13:44:40

Oh wow thats obnoxious.
Do let us know how you respond to her.
What a nerve she has.

MrsBungle Tue 14-May-13 13:50:41

The nerve if her. I never fail to be amazed at the brass neck of some folk!

She can still be done for breaching ASA rules and the dpa for printing DSs name without consent, even though she has removed the images. Plus <gets on soap box> you were at a private party where it is reasonable to expect a right to privacy, you did not even know she was taking these photos. I would be contacting the ASA as it seems she has not learned her lesson at all. Next time there could be catastrophic results. Silly woman.

NigellaTufnel Tue 14-May-13 13:51:40

Oh show us your response!

wtf? what a stupid stupid woman angry

Thumbwitch Tue 14-May-13 13:57:00

Yy, please let us give feedback on your response as well.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 14:04:57

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 14:09:43

Oooooh parental fire!

Hope her response is apologetic. She needs a reality check and a prompt to do more research into how to conduct her business.

Blatherskite Tue 14-May-13 14:13:38

I'd drop the swearing as it lessens your moral high ground somewhat and the last sentence about being rude and hostile.

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 14:16:18

Didnt mention the swearing as think email has already been sent?

JenaiMorris Tue 14-May-13 14:20:03

What Blathers said, but I guess it's a bit late now.

Do not forget, to [baby’s] dad, you are nobody (less than) and he is beyond livid and ready to take any action against you possible - WTF does that mean? I'd be considering calling the police at this point if I was her!

MerylStrop Tue 14-May-13 14:20:48

Don't send that email
It is too long, too emotional, and you are rude and abusive to her which will make it easy for her to dismiss you as a nutter and not Get It

Make it much shorter and colder. Tell her that her actions and response are unprofessional, that you are pleased to note that the images have been removed but that you expect a full apology. And that, for the benefit of her business she needs to grasp that she can't take photos of people without their permission for business use.

There must be a code of conduct somewhere you can cite

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 14:22:12

Oh dear, probably shouldn't have posted it as it is sent.

Jennai, I meant legal action. I didn't read it as anything violent :-O

MerylStrop Tue 14-May-13 14:22:46

Oh God you've sent it?
Well, brace yourself
She's behaved appallingly but no good can come of that kind of note

Dfg15 Tue 14-May-13 14:23:54

I didn't read it as meaning anything violent either, obviously legal! You swore once in it and I think you were justified in doing so. Sod the moral high ground, if it makes her think about doing that kind of thing again, then good

Fedupofdiets Tue 14-May-13 14:24:18

I agree with Meryl, sounds like she wants to piss you off with her reply and you are playing into her hands with such a highly emotional email. Your far better with a cold cool response. Try and calm down first then write it. She is very out of order and clearly doesn't give much of a shit!

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 14:26:38

Hmm, I have to say I disagree with some of the commentary but then I did write it. I have conveyed much of what I wanted to say, although I understand those looking from a more formal point of view.

shemademedoit Tue 14-May-13 14:28:30

I'd have sent her an invoice for modelling service too...

Thumbwitch Tue 14-May-13 14:28:32

Well it made me smile but I tend to agree with the other posters - never a good idea to send your first draft, you should always edit it down at least twice! No worries, it's done now. I don't think there's anything in there that she can get you with and after all, SHE is the one in the wrong.

I loved the use of the PA "Kind regards" at the end of it too...

OddSockMonster Tue 14-May-13 14:30:16

I have to say, I really like your response OP! At least she sould have no mis-understanding of how you feel about it all!

Have you mentioned it to your friends who held the party? I suspect this may get back to her somehow.

badbride Tue 14-May-13 14:31:26

Sometimes a thorough rocketing is the only way to make a transgressor see the error of their ways.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 14:31:30

Well, I have had a very apologetic email back. She sounds worried....

Dfg15 Tue 14-May-13 14:32:43

so she should !

badbride Tue 14-May-13 14:33:51

...QED grin

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 14:34:37

Please expand on "sounds worried" - has the penny (finally) dropped?

JenaiMorris Tue 14-May-13 14:40:52

Ah, well it sounds like badbride is right about rockets grin

What has she said?

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 14:40:55

She has managed to apologise (for her responses, that I am unhappy), without ever apologising for the actual images, the advertisements or the distribution around the net..... so no, the penny clearly hasn't fully dropped.

She has focused more on the very last sentence than any other (touched a nerve?)

Just multiple apologies and an assurance that as soon as she has full access to the net that she will remove everything.

Blatherskite Tue 14-May-13 14:45:21

You diluted your point with that last line.

You should always have MN proof read your ranty emails first wink

treas Tue 14-May-13 14:47:12

I think Op that you will be unlikely to receive an apology from this person as they are covering their arse should you take it further legally, as an apology would be seen as an admission of guilt.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Tue 14-May-13 14:48:14

I know re the last line. I do agree but it was important, simply because it demonstrates that this was someone that clearly didn't like us but thought it was ok to take advantage.

Goodness, she showed her true colours. Glad the second response was rather more appropriate than the first. It might be worth tie-ing her into a timeline for removal too, which I am guessing she didn't provide in her second email. It is also worth flagging the issue with the ASA and other relevant bodies irrespective of the 'apology' if you feel she still doesn't understand what the problems in acting this way are.

MrsSB - my point still stands. Where there is no immediate risk, and there wasn't, one should not react in the way suggested until there is proof that one should. In this case proof was provided and LadyG acted on it.

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 15:25:51

TBH Moonlight I still don't really understand why you picked on my posts specifically. I did not encourage any specific action in any of my posts (eg trashing her business), I just said I couldn't bear the issue being minimised as it was(in my view - which I believe I am entitled to) :

1. Common sense
2. Basic photography "etiquette"
3. Obvious business practice

That anyone should be expected to know, let alone a professional.

So my views still stand. I was bemused to be honest as to what you found so incredibly emotive and offensive about my specific posts. I didn't actually suggest any specific action in any of my initial posts. confused

MrsSB - Apologies, that certainly wasn't the intention - I'd simply responded as you'd mentioned my name in your last post - that's all. Hadn't found anything emotive or offensive in them and wasn't belittling your view-point, just re-stating mine.

StuntGirl Tue 14-May-13 16:29:20

Aw gutted I missed your response to her OP! She sounds like an absolute charlatan, what have your mutual friends said about the whole thing? I'd take a very dim view of one of my friends behaving like this.

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 18:48:38

Moonlight fair enough. Here: peace offering? flowers

MrsDeVere Tue 14-May-13 18:54:13

I probably would have cautioned against sending the email BUT as pp have said sometimes a furious verbal arse kicking is the only way to go.

She came across a bit like a stroppy teenager in her original reply. You could just see her rolling her eyes.

She took the piss. She used your child as a free model and as a photographer she must have known what she was doing.

I don't blame you for going nuclear on her.

Sometimes I get sick of putting together carefully crafted complaint and really just want to say 'fucking hell you fucking fuckwits!'

JenaiMorris Tue 14-May-13 19:07:00


Rarely but effectively, blowing a gasket is well worth it.

Ooh this would have annoyed me too. When we got married a young videographer who was just starting up did our video. We didn't pay very much and there was no contract etc. he did a good job and we were very pleased.
However a few months later someone stopped me in the street and said they recognised me from my wedding video...I asked where they had seen it and they said the guy had been sending out copies of my full wedding DVD to potential clients! I was livid, I've no idea how many people had seen it, watched me cry during my vows and dancing with my dh.
To top it off we went to the cinema one night and our picture came up during the averts at the start, promoting his business!
I had to ask him about ten times to stop, eventually left him a very angry and ranty voicemail threatening legal action which his dad replied to stating our video would not be used again.
Talk about mad!!

MrsSB. Ditto and wine? smile

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 20:42:42

Oh Moonlight I wish I could imbibe wine - 9 weeks to go! smile

Ah, but this is a virtual one, so you're fine. grin

The nine weeks will fly in.

MrsSpagBol Tue 14-May-13 21:58:06

I hope so!!! I am so tired of being pregnant!

Wouldn't of bothered me at all if she asked permission. YAB a bit U and precious

Yes, I remember those days, heaving my bulk wandering gaily along having a hot flush 'glowing', wearing a 'floaty' outfit...Not sure how, given that lot, but the due date really did arrive before I knew it.

So, two weeks to the bank holiday, then two weeks after that it's four weeks before and then...grin

maddening Tue 14-May-13 22:34:56

But Davey - she didn't ask permission and was then rude when she was asked very reasonably to remove the pics which is the op's legal right to do so. 

GingerBlondecat Wed 15-May-13 09:38:07

? Davey? Are YOU the photographer?

what an odd responce to this. Have you read the whole thread ?

If you have then here have a biscuit

differentnameforthis Wed 15-May-13 09:57:20

The photo's have been removed

Make sure you tell her that there is no apostrophe in photos & that as a consumer, this would put me right off using her services.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 15-May-13 20:40:18

Don't say anything at all about her grammar it will make you look like a knob and invalidate genuine concerns.

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