Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Was I unreasonable to post a picture of this man online?

132 replies

IsitaStorminanInstaTeaCup · 13/07/2018 11:20

For context, I regularly attend a church with my DP - and it's fairly old school I guess if that's relevant. I was at an event the other week with quite a few other church people including ministers, and afterwards my friend sent me a photo of me, DP and one of aforementioned ministers standing in a group. She had told us to be 'casual' in it, and the resulting pic was both nice and amusing to me - I'm doing a mid-conversation pose, and a minister is with us. So I posted it on Instagram, with a caption like, 'my favourite informal snap from...' blah blah. Today, I find out through a garbled message that DP has heard from the minister, and the minister wants it to be deleted from my account.

I'm a bit baffled, but also massively embarrassed that this man has somehow tracked the photo down and asked for it to be deleted Blush He definitely doesn't have Instagram, my account is private...I suppose he heard from a church acquaintance, but it's hardly a dreadful picture! Argh...was I very unreasonable? :(

OP posts:
Jengnr · 13/07/2018 14:59

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

duckfuckduck · 13/07/2018 15:03

Gdpr doesn’t apply if you are acting in a private capacity. The vicar would have to go to Instagram, not the op, if he wanted to go that route.

ferrier · 13/07/2018 15:05

At the end of the day however harmless you may think it is, this person has a right to not have their image used online if they don't want to. And they don't have to justify why.

This is a really interesting thread. Only a couple of weeks ago a poster was told she WBU for wanting someone to remove from social media a photo of her in pjs after a hotel evacuation and that she had no right in law or even morally according to some replies to expect this.

WendyCope · 13/07/2018 15:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

WendyCope · 13/07/2018 15:11

… unhinged, no. Sensible, yes.

ThisIsMyID · 13/07/2018 15:12

If you're happy with how you look, and it's your account, I'd respect his privacy by editing the pic so he has a great big emoji smiling face covering his identity.......

WendyCope · 13/07/2018 15:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Coyoacan · 13/07/2018 15:23

I am neither a criminal, nor a paedo, and am hiding from no-one, but I do not want my photos on social media. As DoJo said, I may not be able to take legal action against someone who puts my photo up, but if they are decent human beings they will respect my wishes.

The reference to you not being ideal material as a vicar's wife, OP, was nothing to do with your fondness for Instagram and nice photos of yourself and everything to do with your not knowing how to respect the wishes of others who are not like you.

DiegoMadonna · 13/07/2018 15:23

could get sacked if, for example she was holding a glass of wine or talking to a married man laughing

Is she a teacher in the UAE or somewhere like that?

Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar · 13/07/2018 15:29

Oh fgs! What sort of vacuous airhead would insist on keeping the photo up with a “smiley emoji” across the face of the vicar who asked for it to be taken down?
Your dp must be cringing at you, op.

OVienna · 13/07/2018 15:32

@MissionItsPossible oh I see now.

ReservoirDogs · 13/07/2018 15:34

He posed for the picture so he knew that it was being taken and seen by people.

The legal position is you certainly do not have to ask people's permission to post their picture on social media if it is taken in public and you are in public.

ThisIsMyID · 13/07/2018 15:39

@Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar

Thanks a lot. How terribly pleasant. All I said was if she can't do without the pic of herself in her own private Instagram, then she should hide the identity of the other party who doesn't want his likeness published. Smiley emoji was just one of many possible suggestions, and the first that came to mind.

I'll take my vacuous airhead ideas somewhere else......

BertrandRussell · 13/07/2018 15:40

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

purplecorkheart · 13/07/2018 15:42

The man does not want his picture on social media, he found out you had posted one (despite your account being on Private).

As soon as he requested it to be taken down it should have been, not when it suited you.

You said the picture was taken mid conversation, did he even know the picture had been taken? I am sorry but the joke about printing the photo out and still something over this man's face is pathetic.

Your husband wants to become a vicar, a major part of that job is gaining people trust and keeping it. You are not helping him by having little respect for people wishes and what I want matters over you attitude

DuckbilledSplatterPuff · 13/07/2018 15:54

He posed for a photo at a public event, where the photographer told him to be casual. People take lots of these kinds of photos of church events and put them in the Church newsletters or websites.
So he had ample opportunity to let it be known that he didn't want the photo used.
The op had a private instagram, by invitation only. One can only assume that one of her "friends" is less godly than the OP thought and squealed on her.
He has every right to say take the photo down, but I think the OP has not committed a mortal sin by posting a photo from a public event on her private page and if she takes it down he should forgive and forget ad tell people next time, so as not to embarrass them as the OP clearly is.

WendyCope · 13/07/2018 15:56

Diego No, in England! Not saying where but you would have heard of it. Vair posh public school.

Another teacher DID get sacked for this. She broke her contract. My Sis is now paranoid. It is a 24/7 job, as someone else said.

If people don't believe me, I don't care. I am telling the truth.

Be careful applying for jobs, surely EVERYONE knows that prospective employers check your facebook first? Surely?

Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar · 13/07/2018 15:59

Op says they were caught in mid conversation, why are people insisting he posed knowingly?

haribosmarties · 13/07/2018 16:06

neither of you are being unreasonable. Its not like you took the picture by stealth without him knowing... and its your picture and he is not named in it etc... so its reasonable for you to use it how you see fit.... but its also reasonable seeing as its a picture of him, for him to politely ask you not to use it.

DuckbilledSplatterPuff · 13/07/2018 16:08

" a photo of me, DP and one of aforementioned ministers standing in a group. She had told us to be 'casual' in it, and the resulting pic was both nice and amusing to me - I'm doing a mid-conversation pose, and a minister is with us. "

He is "in a group with us." The photographer is orchestrating the photo, telling people how to pose. so I do think he could see it being taken. Even if he wasn't sure he'd be in it, he could have said please don't photograph me or asked the photographer not to send it out.
But maybe OP could clarify

Original poster
IsitaStorminanInstaTeaCup · 13/07/2018 16:14

I'm not a troll - it seems quite a niche situation to make up. I did name change, and posted very soon after I'd got DP's message (while I was at work), so was feeling a bit weird about it. Anyway, I deleted the post from Instagram earlier on.

The minister did know that his picture was being taken, but I didn't let him know that I'd be posting it - because I didn't know I would. I just saw afterwards that it was a nice picture I'd quite like to share.

OP posts:
WendyCope · 13/07/2018 16:14

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
IsitaStorminanInstaTeaCup · 13/07/2018 16:19

Wendy, would you mind awfully not shouting in every post that I'm a troll?

OP posts:
Treesybreezy · 13/07/2018 16:19

I have no comment on the suitability of the op to the clerical life but as someone who, shock horror, takes photographs in public spaces of everything I'd just like to clarify some of the arrant nonsense being spouted by some pp.

In a public space you have NO expectation of privacy. Therefore anyone can take your photo and post it wherever they wish. It doesn't matter about the age of the photographer's subject - the only issue is if an image of an under 18 yr old is used for pornagraphic purposes, which is illegal. There's a few restrictions around armed forces and images which could be argued to be used for terrorism. If you persistently take photos of a person (any age) in public, you could be charged with harassment, but that's not the same as being expressly forbidden to take photos of people.

There is a right to privacy in the ECHR that the UK has adopted. It clashes with both UK law and another right in the act. Courts would balance up the differing needs of the parties involved when an argument over publication of images comes up, there's not an instant, no photos to be taken.

If it was illegal to take photos of people, the UK wouldn't have one of the most extensive CCTV networks in the world.

CountFosco · 13/07/2018 16:23

Legally he has no rights over his image. He can ask you to remove it but you don't have to.

However, the copyright belongs to the photographer and you need their permission to reproduce the image.

Swipe left for the next trending thread