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

[StripeyChina]

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?

But the ask the police site specifically says it is not a criminal legal matter. It says you could open yourself to a civil case of defamation or privacy, and this is why agencies all ask for consent forms. But that it is not a criminal matter. There are exceptions to that, but that does not seem to be the case here.

It's down to use of image as well. Use of image for editorial purpose (e.g. news reporting) - no model release required. Use of image for advertising purposes (e.g. the holiday brochures a PP worked on) - model release required.

A photo taken of a child in a public place used to illustrate a news report on the event the child was taking part in does not require permission from anybody to be used.

But is it a criminal or civil law case? Ask the police says civil law. So you have to take someone to court yourself.

OP first thing to do is get in touch with agency, tell them you didn't give permission and there is potential risk, I expect they will take it down, they host loads of photos they aren't going to worry about taking one off, I expect they will do decent thing irrespective of law.

If not then you need to think what to do next.

This just reminded me as well 'You do need permission for pictures taken in public of child or adult as there is no expectation of privacy' this was the reason a teacher got off taking up skirt photos of his female pupils! Clearly law cannot cover everything. Luckily (well not luckily it was a lot of campaigning) up skirting is illegal now. Sorry bit of a tangent that just reminded me!

ladamanera - Article 8 of GDPR is about social networking. It is completely irrelevant when dealing with photos.

under gdpr an identifiable image of an under 16 is sensitive personal data

No it is not. Sensitive data is, "data consisting of racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, genetic data, biometric data, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation". A photo may class as sensitive data depending on its content but a photo does not become sensitive data just because the subject is a child.

As has been said above, if the agency is relying on consent for processing this image they must remove it as they clearly do not have consent. If they are relying on legitimate interests it is more complex. The OP can ask for it to be deleted but, as FiddlesticksAkimbo says, the agency can argue that it has an overriding legitimate interest, although that argument is unlikely to prevail with the ICO when dealing with an image of a child.

A few hundred pounds for a photo of a random child?

It may seem incredible that they're charging that much money but (random story alert) I once tracked down the (American) photographer who'd taken a picture I saw in a weekend magazine supplement - it had really taken DH's fancy and I thought I'd buy a print of it for his birthday.

Apart from being a good shot, it was a completely ordinary photo by not a star photographer (I mean, not Rankin or Martin Parr or anything), so I was stunned when she emailed back and said the print would cost several hundred dollars.

I didn't buy it.

Of course any photographer is going to charge for selling their property.

You be able to get a print off a newspaper. I knew certainly the more local ones will for a reasonable price.

We bought press coverage of shows where the pictures have been front page of children in a large travelling production for instance.

Of course they were going to charge a fee, it's their livelihood and I knew that, smother. Just not the $$$ that it turned out to be.

What happened in the end @stripeychina? Did they take the photo down?