Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Photo of Dd for sale after i said 'no'?

110 replies

StripeyChina · 20/04/2019 08:50

Dd and I took part in a public walk today with a religious purpose.
It was photographed by some members of the public and the local paper. We were walking in a big group so it didn't feel invasive. But there was also a man there from a big photographic agency who hopped up and snapped Dd seemingly close up as we came off the route, with 'view' in the background. I asked him to crop out of pic.

I've just checked and there is a close up pic of just my Dd, full face, v identifiable. I can buy a copy for a few hundred quid. So can anyone.

Is there anything i can do?

OP posts:
DeeCeeCherry · 20/04/2019 11:54

Wouldn't this count as a commercial image, in the circumstances? That being the case, there laws surrounding this issue in the UK and I'd be looking into getting further information and making a complaint. Don't let the 'youre being silly' folk put you off if you want to take a stand against this.

sirfredfredgeorge · 20/04/2019 12:00

There are six grounds for processing, although some of them clearly do not apply. The photographer may have a legitimate interest, particularly if they are taking photos for the media.

Only 2 which could apply here, none of the other 4 could.

Article 14 is about provision of information to the data subject. The data controller is not obliged to comply with this if providing the information would be impossible or involves disproportionate effort

With the subject (well her parental guardians) engaging the photographer in conversation and objecting to the LI, I cannot see how it could be impossible, or involve disproportionate effort.

Also there was (IMO) an explicit Article 21 objection to the processing, in which case they cannot process until they've demonstrated "compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject", I think it very unlikely that that had been done, and certainly no evidence that 21(4) had been done.

So whilst I obviously agree that the photographer doesn't have a LI here, I do believe they have failed in the procedural requirements of demonstrating it. However as I said the chances of enforcement are very low.

Do you actually have a view on how they could have fully met their requirements?

sirfredfredgeorge · 20/04/2019 12:02

So whilst I obviously agree that the photographer doesn't have a LI here

er doesn't should be does.

liquidfootball · 20/04/2019 12:17

op has not said that her dd is a child.

FiddlesticksAkimbo · 20/04/2019 12:18

Hi Rach,

My understanding of the Weller case was that it was simply an application of the Court of Appeal criteria in Murray. But rather than bore everyone with case law ...

I would agree with some posters that you can't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a march

This absolutely! A major point of this sort of activity in public is presumably to be seen. One of the Murray factors is the nature of the activity. Whether that's marching against brexit or bearing witness to your faith it's hard to argue that it has an expectation of privacy. Popping to the shops, being on a family holiday, those are different. But with this activity you might have more trouble, and probably should not take your child if you are reluctant for them to be photographed.

CustardySergeant · 20/04/2019 12:22

"I've just checked and there is a close up pic of just my Dd, full face, v identifiable. I can buy a copy for a few hundred quid. So can anyone."

OP, do you think there is a chance that "anyone" would pay a few hundred quid for that close up pic of just your Dd? If so, why? If not, what is the problem?

Witchend · 20/04/2019 12:36

If there were some photographers and the picture you saw taken could crop your dd out, and this is full face, surely the most likely conclusion is that that photo was taken by a different photographer.

prh47bridge · 20/04/2019 12:41

Do you actually have a view on how they could have fully met their requirements

The question (assuming none of the other Article 14 exemptions apply) is whether a photographer is expected to carry copies of their privacy notice with them and hand them out at the time, or take names and addresses to send a privacy notice later, or if some other means of notification is adequate. I don't know of any case law on this since GDPR came into force.

Original poster
StripeyChina · 20/04/2019 16:51

Sorry have been out all day and have not 'caught up' properly yet.
Don't want to say anything potentially identifiable, but:
Dd is 11 (and looks younger if anything)
She is being assessed for ASD so is socially 'young' too
I have a 1st degree relative who is a sex offender. He is not on any Register (historic) so my kids are not subject to any 'protection' but I've been careful about their image online (v little on my 'locked down' FB). Perhaps that is oversensitive but it's my choice for him not to know where / who we are - it makes me feel safer.

It was end of an act of religious observance. The photo guy was waiting as we dispersed into a public area. I am physically disabled and was struggling. It looked like the shot might not have me in but certainly might have DD so i said 'Please - Crop Us Out!' I may have snapped a bit? He was in our faces rather and I was trying not to fall over and reach seating. I went to look for him to explain why I really didnt want dd in any pic but he'd gone. I realise she is not named / address / specific school uniform but I'd just prefer no public pics

I asked some others and they said who he was 'from' so I looked it up. There she is, pic avail for ££ - £££. It says 'rights released' ('people in image have given permission for commercial use'). I defo didn't :(
The 2nd part of this is tomorrow morning, to parade to the place of worship. I now wonder about taking dd along (she wants to go but maybe we'll just meet the rest of the group there). Is there any way to search the papers over the weekend (other than buying them all and going through them')?
I appreciate I am a bit sensitive about this but I didn't realise a person could take a pic of your child without your consent for then offer for sale for £££ profit like this? Obvs if the pic is 'out' it is, but I would like to know 'the rules' for another time?

I'll read back now...

OP posts:
Original poster
StripeyChina · 20/04/2019 17:23

Sorry, I said: 'please, crop us out, crop her out'. I defo didn't just say: 'crop me out'. It would have been much better to say: 'don't take a picture of my child, she is 11' but it was all a rush and then he was gone.

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 20/04/2019 18:31

The rules are as I have set out. It sounds like the photographer was not media so, in simple terms, there is no problem with him taking a picture of a crowd which includes your daughter and making use of that, but taking a picture specifically of your daughter and using it commercially may be a breach of GDPR. As they say "people in image have given permission" when this is not true, I suggest you contact them, make it clear you did not consent and insist that the photo is removed.

ladamanera · 20/04/2019 20:03

Christ alive. The lawyers need to stop arguing about the particular grounds of the GDPR that may or may not have been breached by commercial street photography in general and just tell the woman what to do to fix her particular issue.
Which is to write and explain no consent and exercise immediate right to erasure of the image. As I explained on the last page.

No point in working out the breach in any other way as suing would be disproportionate and there’s no apparent loss.
And we wonder why people don’t like our fees...

sirfredfredgeorge · 20/04/2019 21:05

Which is to write and explain no consent and exercise immediate right to erasure of the image

There is not an automatic requirement for consent to exist for commercial exploitation.

Lovewineandchocs · 20/04/2019 21:20

Exercise your right to object under GDPR by writing to the agency and stating that you object to them processing your daughter’s personal data i.e. using her image. They will have to get back to you within one calendar month and show that they have a lawful basis for processing or confirm that they have stopped using the image. If they refuse to stop using it, next step is to complain to the ICO.

marine04 · 20/04/2019 22:48

The law may well have changed but five years ago my daughter confronted a well known politician in our small town during a by-election. All the big papers were around. After she'd spoken to him we went shopping and then as we headed home we were stopped by a journalist from one of the broadsheets. He asked to interview her (didn't have a problem with this as she was 15 and happy to do so) and then asked me if his photographer could take a picture of her; I refused this. Therefore we were slightly suprised when reading the paper the next day to see a picture of her confronting the politician inside of Wetherspoons. He was fully aware how old she was and that I had refused permission so I don't know on what grounds they published it.

Saltisford · 20/04/2019 23:09

This is not GDPR compliant.

BlueEyedPersephone · 20/04/2019 23:18

He cannot legally do anything with an image of an under 16 without consent. Ask him in writing to remove it and inform him you will complain to the ico under gdpr if he does not.

Abbazed · 20/04/2019 23:19

She's a minor. Police.

Acis · 20/04/2019 23:22

Not a criminal offence, Abbazed.

LillithsFamiliar · 20/04/2019 23:24

prh is correct. OP you can contact the agency and ask but they have no obligation to delete it.
It would also be impossible to know who had bought and used the pic. The agency won't give you that information. (And depending on whether or not they use an online, automated system, they may not know.)

jimmyhill · 21/04/2019 00:19

There are zillions of pictures of children / including children published in newspapers and magazines each year, taken by professional agency photographers who license the photos for sale to whoever wants to use them.

Journalistic photos taken of public events in public places don't require consent for sale or use.

Smotheroffive · 21/04/2019 00:22

He is not allowed to make.money on it. He does not have rights to sell images of others without their permission
He can post it wherever he likes but not profit from it

jimmyhill · 21/04/2019 00:32

He can post it wherever he likes but not profit from it

Simply not true in the UK. What law prevents him?

Save you some time by saying it's not "GDPR" and it's not "safeguarding" either.

Most ridiculous claim in this thread so far is that he can't sell the photo because the child might be, but isn't, a child with a court order preventing publication of their image.

Original poster
StripeyChina · 21/04/2019 15:43

'not media' - I don't know?
It's a big agency which 'sells Editorial and stocks royalty-free images', so its not joe public bunging it on his FB / contacting us with a print.
He suddenly appeared to a disabled woman and her kid, grabbed a shot, ignored my request to delete and had it up for sale for £100's that night? it may not be illegal, but its pants. It was a religious observance and we were not on a public highway.
We went today for the 2nd part (partly in church, partly in public area). No press around. Dd was feeling poorly so didn't come - sods law.

Thanks for input. I will call tomorrow and let you know how i get on.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread