Child being used in huge ad without consent

I absolutely understand because my own children are mixed race. Which is why I find the OP's attitude of calling them "marketable" quite off-putting. I can only imagine this sentiment gets projected onto the children as well and they grow up up with a distorted image of their identity and self worth. Teaching minority or mixed-race children that their personal likeliness must be protected from exploitation from white people trying to portray faux diversity is not a healthy attitude to have.

The only true issue to consider would be safety. Mixed race kids are more easily identifiable so on that reason alone it's totally understandable that you won't want their photos in public.

How rude are you.

You maybe can't understand this unless you're from a minority or mixed race family (though actually maybe you just need to have some humility to know that just because you haven't personally experienced something it doesn't make it false).

But it is absolutely a thing that minority children are displayed prominently in advertising material by companies wishing to demonstrate their "inclusiveness".

And unless companies have taken other specific steps towards inclusiveness this can feel hollow and cynical. Particularly where an image has used commercially both without consent and without payment.

Copyright is with the photographer, yes. But you should still have releases/consent (separate issues). OP says she didn't consent.

At a public event though, which tournaments usually are, isn’t the copyright with the photographer?

and even if it isn’t public, isn’t it likely it will be in the clubs t&c’s an agreement about photography?

I’ve never had a kids club where the photography consent hasn’t been part of sign up. Never been to a tournament or comp where photography consent isn’t included when you enter.

I'm a lawyer and you haven't made a mistake by asking for money. The damage is done and the advert is out there. Even if they take it down, you should be entitled to payment. They are separate issues.

Their actions are not only wrong in this instance but suggest that they don't take consent seriously. They could use compromising pictures of (for example) young women without seeking permission.

Without your consent they can’t use your sons photo but you can’t expect the pay you for it. Either you don’t want it used and you insist it comes down or you to decide to let it go

I definitely think the club should not have used the image without consent and it should be taken down due to this and I'm sure an apology would be given

I do think its sad that op would be ok with them using the image if compensated. It just feels greedy and grabby

The way I would see it if it was one of my kids sports teams (that we pay for them to attend, like op does this club) my kid gets so much out of engaging with this team and even if coaches do get paid, they also put a lot of their own time and effort into developing sessions and the kids, I am grateful for what they do, even if it is a service that I pay for.

I just feel asking for payment makes it awkward and mean spirited... understandable if privacy/safeguarding/personal concerns but that is not what this is

Maybe clubs should just not take photos at all for anything... Be that personal enjoyment for participants or for marketing, would certainly save a lot of agro in the long run.

Same meat, different gravy.

Unless the OP is in the habit of making her child pay £100 for these events himself.

It's going into her purse.

Has anybody here, ever joined a kids club, school, or pretty much anything and not had a photography consent form?

chances are o/p has recieved this when she joined the club. It may be consent is implied unless you specifically disagree.

if a professional photographer has used these images I suspect there is consent somewhere in the club t&c’s.

That’s not true.

And she said it’s a private club. Could still be a non-profit.

You are correct they should not be used without your consent. I think you may have muddied the water by asking for payment though

I disagree.

They went ahead and used an image without looking for consent - that seems so ignorant that it beggars belief in this day and age.

They either take it down immediately or pay handsomely for its use.

She is not in contradiction - she wants action on the image.

they are being deliberate and obtuse.

Having been involved in kids sport for a long long time now photography consent is usually in the small print when you sign up for the event.

Usually one of three things happen depending on the event rules if you do not consent.

1. your child cannot enter
2. you state you do not consent prior to the event.
3. after the event if 1 and 2 do not apply you email and ask for removal.

i have never heard of images being paid for use. Again it’s normally in the sign up t&c’s that copyright is the photographers, not the subject.

@Ferniefernfernfern what were the tournament entry conditions wrt photos?

I think you have shot yourself in the foot somewhat by suggesting remuneration- you object to the picture being up unless...
But if you have properly said no socials, schools should not be putting them up- We get reminded on every school event not to share beyond family.

Did you email the running race to explicitly state you did not give permission for your likeness to be used for commercial purposes?

No?

Not the same then.

You can have an issue with the image being used without permission online AND an issue with it being used without permission and payment.

Also, it seems the posters around town are the thing OP objects to currently - that’s also OK.

She has the right to consent or not consent to the use of her child’s likeness and impose any conditions she wants to - she owns the rights (on behalf of her child).

No one else gets to dictate the terms of the eir use but her (and any other adult with parental responsibility).

You might think she’s being precious, or has an over-inflated sense of her kid’s beauty or whatever other weird hang up you have over the use of the word ‘marketability’ but the law is very clear.

Yes I agree.

You don't want your child's image used UNLESS you get something for it??

Absolutely not being unreasonable. Using your child's images without asking, getting your consent or paying to promote their thing, is NOT ON.

It isn't really. A lot of people sign image releases and don't get paid.

But the point is:

do you object to people your child's image online

OR

do you object to people using your child's image online without payment.

There is a not very subtle difference!

I also note your comment that their looks make them marketable. Naturally.

Given that my picture has ended up on a flyer for a running race, I doubt it has anything to do with their looks and simply that the photo was the first one they came across when looking for one.

I don’t agree at all with the
using your sons photo. I would just double check about permissions and contracts for being part of the club. If you have specifically asked then they are in breech of regulations covering this.

Where this fell down a bit for me was you asking for remuneration. So you don’t mind as long as they pay you?

Either you are against it and I would agree with this and it should be taken down or they keep it up and pay you. You can’t have it both ways.

Honestly if it really bothered you that much and you are that against it then it wouldn’t be about money.

lots of assumptions being made here with zero understanding of the situation or the law.

She isn’t even asking for money - she’s asked for a free place on the holiday camp - presumably that’s for the child, although maybe the OP is taking it herself?

@Ferniefernfernfern are you secretly taking the place yourself?

This- Asking for money and calling your children “Marketable “ as they are rare (?!) in your area looks like you are just after money to be fair , rather than trying to protect their privacy'

@Ferniefernfernfern
There are a lot of comments like this one above ("I had sympathy for you until you asked for money"/ "asking for money is paying for the consent") which show a lot of misunderstanding of the law.

It does not follow that asking for money (compensation for damage) is incompatible with wanting the use to stop. These are a basic legal principles:

1. if a legal wrong has occurred and is continuing, you are entitled in law to an order to stop it.
2. if a legal wrong has occurred, you are entitled to damages (money) to compensate you for the wrong that has occurred. This is not incompatible with the wish to stop whatever you are complaining about because it is compensation for the past damage that has occurred.

It's like this say someone starts selling tickets for a public meeting in your garden. People turn up and have a meeting in your garden - trespassing on your land. Happens next week. and the next week.

You are entitled to 1. an order to stop the organisers from doing this and to stop attendees trespassing and 2. damages - money - compensation for the trespass that has already occurred. Asking for money doesn't mean you consent or ever did. It is to compensate for the damage in the past.

Well, clearly not - she was explicit in saying her kid’s image couldn’t be used for commercial purposes and yet they blew it up into a giant poster.

Shit, not shit hot in this instance.

SHE wants to get her hands on the money and not give it to her child!

Just like the advertisers also want to make money out of her CHILD.

The only person getting a raw deal here is the kid who won't see a penny of it.