Child being used in huge ad without consent

No, they should have sought your consent first then offered payment to all those involved if that was in the contract. Compensation won't alter the fact that consent wasn't given, isn't that your priority?

I've just followed up on my previous email suggesting that they remunerate my son in the form of covering his half-term camp costs (around £100).

AIBU? My background is in advertising/TV and I know how easy it is for businesses to exploit children's images without proper payment or consent, but maybe I'm overthinking it.

This did make me laugh OP, the irony! 🤣🤣

I was completely with you until you declared YOU want paying to reimburse YOU for a club you'd already decided to pay out for, because you don't think THEY should exploit your son!

Think about it lol.

Asking for money- YABU
It ruins your position that their image should not be used, adding an "unless they pay up" angle

Using it when you've made it clear in writing not to- YANBU.

I've volunteered with children and we had some who were in the care system, and another whose mother had escaped abuse which the child had also suffered. We quite literally would have put their safety at risk if we ignored requests not to show them or name them online or anywhere else.

Even in my pub if I take photos of bands or event, I always ask for permission and we have several signs up saying we do take photos for social media and display (we have a two big frames of photos old and new as collages) and to speak to staff of they wish not be appear.

It's literally the law.

She didn't let them. She said no, then when they did anyway, she objected and got nowhere... The money was an attempt to redress that to some level of fairness. It wasn't her objective.

Private schools are. Private healthcare is.

Yes, this. It's perfectly fine for you to not want your child's image used, and there's no way they should have used it when you'd asked them not to. They should absolutely withdraw the advertising using the images.

Asking for money is just blurring the issue. If you don't want his image used, you don't want it used.

This.

You let them use your child’s image on SM, but now you’re not happy as they’re not making money from it 🤔

Imagine being that parent that gives away your children’s rights to massive tech firms without caring about how it’s used.

I do think you’ve explained the reason the OP is having a hard time here - jealousy. That peculiar thing we Brits have about self-confidence.

Clearly her kids are marketable - either because they are cute, or because diversity is valued in ads, or a mix of both. There’s a reason that photo was chosen - so her child has value. Nothing wrong in expecting the company to ask permission to revoke the previous denial of usage rights for commercial purposes.

And since they have broken the law and can’t take it back, nothing wrong with asking for compensation. OP is being pragmatic not grabby

I take it as ‘we don’t allow our kids image to be used without our explicit permission’. I don’t allow my kids on social media, but have taken them to filmed events where they are likely to appear on tv.

Social media comes with it a raft of privacy issues where you assign the right to use any image uploaded for any use, including AI scraping, that the social media company desires.

It’s not just about people seeing the image or not.

There is nothing wrong with wanting control and explicit terms enforced regarding the use of your image (or your children’s).

What I don’t understand is people shaming the OP for holding the club to account for breaking the law - especially as she is being pretty kind with her ask.

My kids are in the minority where we live, so I think their look makes them particularly marketable. I've had to ask for their pictures to be taken down by virtually every single school and activity they've ever participated in.

This is a very peculiar statement. If the kids have an unique appearance that makes them easily identifiable (eg mixed race) then it's reasonable to request images to be removed. However it's bizarre to describe your own kids as "particularly marketable". What is that even supposed to mean? So you believe that are really attractive and can be used to sell products and therefore you refuse anyone to use their images online. Sounds a bit precious? Imagine being that parent forcing every school and activity to remove photos from social media because you think your kids are too beautiful to be used without permission.

I am still so confused by these posts - OP clearly states that she gave consent for this specific tournament.

And yes, of course OP can request the advertising posters to be removed - if it's a decent club they will do this. Asking for money however completely blurs the lines of the point OP is making.

My point was that the OP said "we don't allow our children to appear on social media". Unless they can make some money out it seems. It clouds the issue.

How is asking for compensation for the club breaking the law is definitely losing the moral high ground?

It’s a pragmatic solution to the current situation.

The club cannot turn back time to not use the image illegally, can it?

She could sue and make an official complaint, leaving the club open to fines and compensation that would very likely total more than the free place will cost.

She could insist the posters be removed, which will also cost the club money.

I’m astounded at how little people on here value their personal image.

I wouldn’t want my kids image splashed all over the place
so YANBU
but then I would stick to that and not think it’s OK as long as you pay
so YABU

If you can’t be bothered RTFT, at least read the OP properly.

They wrote to the club to explicitly refuse the use of photos of their kid for commercial purposes 3 months ago.

You’ve let them use photos of your child on Instagram. You’re obviously not that bothered about privacy.

Asking for money is demolishing any last claim you might have had to the moral high ground. Your principles are clearly for sale.

Oh please. Asking for less than £100 compensation for breaking the law and illegally using their child’s image without permission is not grabby.

Grabby is using a paying customer’s image without their permission to advertise your business, compounded by singling them out because they are a POC.

This!!

Did you sign a form to allow them to use your child's image for marketing purposes? My DD recently did a dance workshop. Beforehand we had a form to sign confirming or not our permission to use her image in this context. We okayed it and she's appeared prominently in their marketing materials. She is chuffed about it and I am perfectly happy. It would be another matter if we had not consented.

Clearly in the minority, but for me this is definitely in the ‘I’ve got a million other things to worry about’ box.

I’d be proud……and you come across as grabby.

I totally agree with this.

Absolutely not. I don't want my children on TV or huge banners and have deliberately posted very little about them online. If they decide as adults they wish to do this they can do as it's then there choice.

Both, surely?

And what’s wrong with that?

Anyone can assign a value to their likeness - I don’t understand why so many posters (not you) are judging the OP for this.

The very fact that her child’s photo was used over any others gives it an intrinsic value.

People seem to think it’s grabby or something, when it’s just sensible. This is a business not a charity or a hospital.

This is only relevant if the advertising banner was made by the tournament company.

Agreeing to the tournament T&Cs doesn’t give the club permission to use the child’s likeness.