motherinlaw that posts pics on facebook

[nowonthepill]

Hi there, just need to vent some anger! My motherinlaw is a total facebook addict. She plays farmville 24/7 and is friends with loads of people she barely knows as it benefits her farm or something...Anyway she puts loads of photos of my kids on, often using one as her profile pic. She knows I'm not keen but it doesn't seem to stop her. Am I being unreasonable to not want my kids shown off to a load of complete strangers? I really hate that I feel I've no control over this and worry that it's a little dangerous to provide so much info on three little kids. What does everyone else think? Feel free to tell me I'm being paranoid!

Although, you did say, 'Feel free to tell me I'm being paranoid' :o

BreconBeBuggered - this thread wasn't started by me. When I said "my first post" I meant the one I first posted on this thread. Sorry! :)
But yeah, feel free to call me paranoid too, just not in an insulting way :)

OP, I think YABU and YABparanoid.

I also think if I were your MIL I'd probably take the photos down out of respect to your, so as not to sour the relationship whilst thinking you were a fruitloop.

But, what about the MIL's right to photos of her grandkids? I am not entirely convinced by the idea that a mum can always control exactly who has a pictures of her children. They are your DH's children, too; does he have any say? Does your MIL have any rights as a close blood relative?

I hate, hate having my photo taken (regard it as an intrusion) and avoid it always except for things like staff webpage photos etc. But, I also recognise that family members do have some right to images of me. So I will pose for photos at my sister's wedding, or my dad's birthday; I do not insist that the really hideous photos my mum has displayed in her business of me are taken down. Those images are not about me but about the relative who took them, or who keeps them for sentimental purposes, and who does deserve some consideration.

NeverBeenThere: I was talking generally, not to you specifically. I'd have mentioned you by name if I meant you. Your examples aren't at all random. Sorry for any confusion.

From a legal point of view, whoever takes a photo is the owner of the rights to publish that photo. So long as the image is not indecent, they can do whatever they wish with that photograph.

OP, if this really bothers you and it might derail your relationship with your MIL from your point of view, then you need to talk to her. Who she befriends and what she does on FB is her prerogative, but if you feel strongly about this then you have the right to let her know. Just don't be surprised or affronted if she doesn't share your views - after all, this thread is evidence that there are very divided sides.

neverbeen yes urban myth are started by neighbours - I have heard the same urban myth - how come when I live no where near you...

If it had happened it would have hit the head lines soemwhere.

Th legal position is as charliesmum states, the photograph belongs to the person that took the photograph.

as for the abduction - no abduction took place a photograph was used in advertising for adoption in USA, adoption laws and style are very very different form the UK and the dc wasn't taken, it seemed like a money scam if anything

Charliemommy not re Facebook they cannot.

YANBU and your MIL should respect your wishes.

It is true that internet photos are taken and used by paedophiles for abuse photographs - making indecent images of children it's called.

Children who are being abused don't normally look happy about it. They look scared, distressed, in pain, tearful. That gives lie to the great Paedophile belief that what they do is not wrong and that the children enjoy it. So they borrow the faces from images of happy, laughing, smiling children.

Yes, they can take photographs from playgrounds and the seaside, but it's so much easier and less risky if parents and grandparents do the work for them.

No, it doesn't harm your child, not really. It just continues the greate Paedophile belief that abuse of children is right. I don't want my children used to further the abuse of other kids and I fully understand that you might not want it either.

LyingWitch hit the nail on the head earlier:

"I think this is more of a 'control' issue; I would feel the same in that respect - but I wouldn't attach child safety issues to it."

It's that MIL is doing something without your express permission. I wouldn't like it either. But they are her family too, and, IMO, it's not worth causing a row over. She will just see you as a controlling bint.

It is true that internet photos are taken and used by paedophiles for abuse photographs - making indecent images of children it's called.

can you show a case where this has been found to be happening? A link to the case would be good

one here ivykaty

Yes wimple, they can. I am a photographer and have to know the law on publishing photographs.

Wimple, that link is about teenagers not babies/young children. As I said earlier, teenage girls are the ones who often put themselves in danger by thinking they are grown up enough to send risque photos of themselves to boyfriends and put up on the FB profiles.

That article is about untampered images of teens, not photoshopped photos of young children.

this didn't bother me either, until MIL commented one day that she liked the blue dungarees i'd bought DC

now i'd only bought them about 3 days earlier, and not spoken/seen her since, until I realised my SIL had uploaded a picture of her DC and mine together as her FB picture

i didn't mind it... BUT that was the start of little glimpses into how much MIL is on FB, and it makes me uncomfortable about how much time she spends checking up on what people are doing/etc

for example, one of DH's brothers regularly posts on the move (from his phone), there's something a bit disturbing about MIL constantly checking what he's up to, commenting on where he is, wondering who he's with at this or that cafe. it just freaks me out that someone knows what's going on in our lives without the chance to catch up with them for real when we meet up, or pop over after school/etc

So. YANBU. it would make me uncomfortable too, and it's one of the reasons why I asked SIL to take down the picture and stop posting them completely publicly without permission. i have no idea who's on her friends list, i'm sure my children aren't interesting to random strangers, so why do they need to have them plastered across the internet?

Besides, DH has spoken about how FB / Google are looking into facial recognition software, it sounds crazy (but he works in IT, programmer, so trustworthy source of tech news!) AND i would hate to think that in 20 years DC goes to uni, someone googles his name, and BING 10, 000 pictures of him as a 5 year old pop up because his auntie has been posting up his picture in public.... (although the name would be a givaway, d'uh, but you know what I mean).

SO, YANBU. anyone who plays the "stop being so paranoid" card really hasn't thought this through, really.

It is about children...are you uggesting a 13 year old is not a child? And doesn't the very fact that this person did this make you think...hmmm maybe some other perve would do the same with a pic of a 7, 8 or 9 year old?

wimple - that a case of teens posting indecent photographs of their boyfriend or girlfriend after they split up - sexting is where boy/f & girl/f swap naughty photos of with other by mobile phone and then for whatever reason they post the indecent photograph of the other person on the internet.

Surely this thread is about children in decent poses - the op never mentioned anything indecent about the photograph the mother in law posted on facebook - or did I miss something?

That's right FGR there were articles about recently which questioned how many parents are putting up their kids WHOLE LIFE from before they are born to every milestone!

Nothing will be private...do people think the images go away after you delete them?

They don't they stick around in there.

p.s. and surely, quite apart from toddler pics coming back to haunt people when they attend uni or go for a job interview, or their date goolges their name in future... apart from child protection issues... or just about wanting control over what pics and info is posted about your DCs online because of over-bearing relatives... is it not just the polite thing to ask before you post this stuff up? ANd if asked to take it down politely - to agree?

ivykaty...the fact is that there are people on here regularly complaining their 11 year old DD is mates with a kid who has put pics of herself in saucy poses in her bikini on FB....now where does the line get drawn?

Oh it's not a worry unless the childs parents put them up? Or..oh if the child puts them up then she's fair game?

That's IT frgr!

I can't ask my 2 year old permission!

Excuse me DD would you mind if I put these pics of you online? They will still be there in 20 years time...can you see any problems with that?

It's about respectin your DC future privacy.

(small aside, WimpleOfTheBallet, my boss once interviewed for a position a couple of years ago, made the mistake of googling one of the guy's name who made the shortlist - i was there when he did it - my oh my there was some embarassing stuff on him online! He didn't get the job, not directly because of those pics/blog posts, but it did, er, "colour" our view of him before the 2nd round.... i'm not saying a picture of my son in dungarees and an ice cream would stop him getting a job,, but is sufficiently cringe worthy to an 18 yr old who's just started a uni course and people look up new friends online!)

No one yet has found a case of decently posed children photographs (opposed to indecent photographs) being used in some perverted way, link to a case would be good?

You are completely missing the point of the thread wimple. A 13yr old allowing herself to be photographed in skimpy clothes is NOT the same as a 3 yr old fully clothed and playing football...

"doesn't the very fact that this person did this make you think...hmmm maybe some other perve would do the same with a pic of a 7, 8 or 9 year old?"

no...