Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
WhiteDust · 21/04/2019 15:56

Wrong link. Will try & find the right one...

ladamanera · 21/04/2019 16:44

Sirfredfred- there is for children.

sirfredfredgeorge · 21/04/2019 17:21

Sirfredfred- there is for children

Where?

Petitprince · 21/04/2019 17:43

He doesn't need any consent or a form signing if it is in public. How do previous posters think court snatch and paparazzi pictures are obtained? News agencies can and do take pictures in public without consent every day.

PreseaCombatir · 21/04/2019 17:55

It sounds as though you didn’t have a ‘reasonable expectation to privacy’ so they presumably aren’t breaking any laws, but if you got in touch with the agency, they’d probably delete it for you.

jimmyhill · 21/04/2019 20:23

It's strictly forbidden by safeguarding and data protection laws which don't have names. You can read all about them at a link which turns out to be the wrong link.

MenuPlant · 21/04/2019 20:49

he is out of order for sure. whether legal or not - no idea. i do think there is a difference being snapped in a crowd and a close up of just you.

i'd email the site he's added it to as a first option, tell them that you didn't consent for her image to be used this way and there are safety concerns, and ask if they will take it off. i expect they will - legalities aside they host squillions of photos and takign 1 off won't make any odds and you could make trouble for them

does anyone know how to do one of those image search things to find if he's put it anywhere else?

FiddlesticksAkimbo · 21/04/2019 21:33

It's strictly forbidden by safeguarding and data protection laws which don't have names. You can read all about them at a link which turns out to be the wrong link.

Grin

I also think you'll find it's against health and safety, and a fire hazard. And if that doesn't cover it there's always the brilliantly vague: "you can't do that - it's not policy"!

Original poster
StripeyChina · 21/04/2019 23:02

I'd like to know how to 'image search' to see if it was in the weekend papers / elsewhere?

OP posts:
BlueEyedPersephone · 22/04/2019 08:30

Okay, under gdpr an identifiable image of an under 16 is sensitive personal data. Therefore unless the controller ( person who took it ) has one of 6 reasons to retain it, they should not. And in addition as the subject who's data it is has s legal right to be forgotten ( request deletion) not a vague fact-a legal regulation. Put in complaint to ICO if company will not delete image.

BlueEyedPersephone · 22/04/2019 08:32

For all those questioning, this does apply to the press and they have to jump through the hoop of reason for processing as well. But if the person is famous they get away with legitimate interest but my the public

Petitprince · 22/04/2019 08:44

No, newspapers don't have to jump through hoops. There's only an issue of there is a court order in place for that individual. How do you think they get pictures of people walking in and out of court? Do you think thet sign a consent form?

spongedog · 22/04/2019 08:57

BlueEyedPersephone - there is no age mentioned in GDPR, apart from 1 tiny reference to online services (13). I dont know where you are getting the 16 from. I deal with DP in a school environment and have looked at this age business fairly carefully.

User28817462737483899 · 22/04/2019 09:01

Well, I really wouldn't worry about it. I don't mean to imply your dd is anything but lovely, but why on Earth would anyone want to pay hundreds of dollars for a photo of her, except you? I honestly wouldn't worry!

This seems a non issue to me!

BlueEyedPersephone · 22/04/2019 09:09

Yes, gdpr regs specify 'children' and whilst they do not specify an age the ico take it into account when apportioning fines, therefore the fine can go from 4% to 10% if the data is children's or sensitive.

Original poster
StripeyChina · 22/04/2019 09:17

It is not a newspaper but a big agency which sells images to media.

It's not relevant whether my dd is 'lovely' or not - she has a right not to be photographed (when worshipping off the public thoroughfare) esp when her parent said 'no', that image shouldn't be for sale for ££ a few hours later. Whether someone buys it or not it is still online.

OP posts:
maddiemookins16mum · 22/04/2019 09:24

I used to write holiday brochures and on occasions went with photographers on photoshoots. My case had a stack of model release forms in case we took photos of kids that we might use in our brochures.

BlueEyedPersephone · 22/04/2019 09:39

Report to ico if they say no to delete image. It is that simple

ladamanera · 23/04/2019 01:06

Persephone is right. Each member state gets to set its own “child” age- provided not younger than 13 and with 16 the norm. Look at Article 8. Look at the UK 2018 data protection act. Strict consent for children’s data and sensitive data. Requirements for collection and information. Worrying some apparent “privacy experts” on this thread are so badly read...

Ilnome · 23/04/2019 01:46

You do need permission for pictures taken in public of child or adult as there is no expectation of privacy. A school such as primary secondary sixth form or college should seek permission and there is an expectation of privacy within a school state or otherwise (also helps staff find out if there is an order prevent photography of said child being published - I know of case where child can’t even have their school photos taken because concern for safety of child coming from a domestic violence situation was severe) just because these places seek permission doesn’t mean they actually have to and this is the standard for everywhere - public walk is just that (usually done to raise awareness - you don’t partake if you don’t want your picture anywhere)

FiddlesticksAkimbo · 23/04/2019 02:00

I'm not quite sure if previous posters are saying that the GDPR provides some sort of blanket ban preventing the "processing" of photographs of children. However, it doesn't.

Art 6(1)(f) says

Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:

(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller [the photographer] ... except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

This "legitimate interests" principle provides the photographer with quite a wide scope to process photos without consent, including commercial interests. To determine whose rights prevail there is a complex balancing act to be carried out, which is described here under the heading "How can we apply legitimate interests in practice?":
ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/legitimate-interests/

The reasoning is essentially the same as the reasoning which the courts have developed to balance Arts 8 and 10 of the ECHR in Campbell and Murray.

In other words, it's not simple! The law does not just say photos of kids cannot be published. There are the rights of others to be balanced. Photos of children need special consideration, but they are not exempt from being published. Organisations which use release forms do so to achieve certainty and to make sure that the subject of the photo has waived their rights. But it may well be that the subject has no rights to waive.

None of this changes the practical first step, which is to get in touch with the publisher, and then the ICO. But if you get no joy you may have to give up!

amandacarnet · 23/04/2019 05:21

There is no law preventing the sale of a child taken in public. Some photographic agencies have in place procedures such as consent forms. But this is about good practice rather than the law.

stucknoue · 23/04/2019 06:30

I looked into this in depth for work. You can take crowd photos without explicit consent as long as it's in a public place and the people know you are photographing them (eg you can't hide behind a tree). Close ups require explicit consent if being distributed, whilst there's some flexibility in what that means, selling commercially is definitely distribution.

Two weeks ago a photographer was in my local park and asked to photograph my dog, I signed a release for that even (and in theory get a fee if it's bought!)

OoohAyyye · 23/04/2019 06:45

I would not like this. So he asked you and you said no, yet he went ahead anyway! Wth!

Personally I'd email him. I would add the date and time of the walk/event and I would make reference to the fact he asked for your permission which you declined. I would politely offer him the opportunity to remove it before I seek legal advice.