To think it's NOT ok to use a photo of someone's child without asking them first?

[chicaguapa]

I looked at a photography website last night and was to see a photo of my DC on it, twice. Not even from a photo shoot, but taken on a day out with the person who owns the website.

AIBU to have expected to have been asked if it was ok to put DC on Facebook the website, or at the very minimum have been told it was there?

I no longer speak to this person as we fell out over a year ago over internet safety issues on Facebook.

Apart from the safety issues, is it not common courtesy to ask parents to use their DC's photos for promotional purposes?

That NSPCC link puts the final nail in the coffin for why I loathe the NSPCC.

NSPCC - what a crock of shite that factsheet is! Scaremongering of the highest order, and it seems to be working!!

I wouldn't be too worried about anonymous pics of kids online, statistically they're more likely to get molested by someone that knows them already (friend, family) than some random paedo that browses photography pages looking for a thrill. He'd be better off browsing an M&S catalogue than family snaps...

Yes, hysterical nonsense.

Are you always this paranoid? What on earth do you think will happen or could happen? Who else bar family would have any interest?

The NSPCC advice is complete scaremongering.

Following their advise they'd be no pictures of kids published anywhere - what about adverts,the argos catalog etc - if they were really that concerned surely they'd be campaigning to "put a full stop" and ban all advertising using children
Perhaps the mothercare catalog should start using "scaled up " outfits modeled by adults and we can simply use our imagination for how cute our DC's will look in Myleens latest creation..............

I think yanbu. I'd feel the same.

A friend works in child protection and some of the children she works with need to be kept out of public photos as they have been removed from a situation or person for their own safety, and could have had their locations and identities changed. A random photographer would have no way of knowing if they are using vulnerable children in their shots unless they asked for consent. Showing children in an identifiable place or wearing school uniform could have implications for their safety.

that is what i meant about publishing pics with full names, not

"due to a fear mongering, paedo-obsessed trash media along with some peculiarly anxious and slightly prudish elements of Anglo-American parenting attitudes"