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

[LadyGranulomaFortesque]

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.

[munchkinmaster]

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]

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]

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.....

[olibeansmummy]

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]

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.

[QuintessentialOHara]

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]

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

[Floggingmolly]

She put his name beside the photos? . 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 , but he knew well he couldn't publish anything without one.

[CSIJanner]

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]

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

Review her photography business on Qype...."

suddenly it's not a business? okaaaay.

[QuintessentialOHara]

After hearing more, it seems it isnt!

[AitchTwoOhOneTwo]

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

[QuintessentialOHara]

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]

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

[AitchTwoOhOneTwo]

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

[Floggingmolly]

Can that be accessed by the public, Quint?

[QuintessentialOHara]

Yes, here it is: the way back machine

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

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

[Floggingmolly]

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

[Heebiejeebie]

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

[WhitesandsofLuskentyre]

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.

[MoonlightandRoses]

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]

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]

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.

[jackjacksmummy]

YANBU

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.