Parents using kids' images for personal profit

[magpiemolly]

Hi all

There is a bit of a storm brewing online at the moment about a commercial deal that the Sussexes seem to have struck with H and M clothing during the SA meeting with Archbishop Tutu. The photos from the meeting have been used by H and M clothing on their 'babies and infants' page, suggesting this meeting was set up as a 'photo shoot' for the brand.

Do you all think it's unreasonable to use your kids' image for commercial profit before the age of 18? I guess this also applies for parents that use their kids' images in sponsored social media posts, for example? And kids who model in 'traditional' genres of advertising.

In scholarly fields, there is a ton of research being conducted into this kind of marketing. I think the scholarship basically points to some big ethical issues here in terms of informed consent on the part of the kids. So, I'm interested to know if mums on here have a strong view that this use of your kids' image is unreasonable. (In Australia we'd call this the 'pub test' - does it pass the morality / decency test of the average person in the pub).

If nobody made any money off of their children there would be literally no children in any kind of media anywhere. There’d be no kids films, no kids TV, no children modelling clothes on websites, seems very hard to imagine, and actually slightly odd.

It's an odd one but I get what you are saying, theory.

I was a child model. I did work for fiat in, their brochures and other big companies, such as Litrlewoods.

My parents didnt make money off me. Travelling expenses were covered. It was in an account and I had a deposit for a house at 18. Bought my first at 19.

I also know someone who has a disabled child that was in a TV show. That money went to towards providing an amazing level of care and extras for the disabled child.

So 2 examples where it's highy benefittedthe children involved. You cant assume the money being made is all being spent by the parents for the parenta benefit.

But also, as pp said, no children would appear anywhere in and form of media. All media would have to pretend children donr exist.

Hmmm great responses. Those points about representation are really true. Interesting that it might seem as if kids just 'didn't exist' if we didn't see them through media... it shows how pervasive media is now, that we can think of it as a sort of 'reality.' I get it though (and we need far more differently-abled people on our screens for sure!)

The notion that if you're passing profits along to your kid/s, does make it seem a good thing. I'm sure most parents have this approach.

I just wonder a) about this issue of informed consent, which as we know is becoming a very big 'thing' now due to #metoo etc? For example, there's a movement across US college campuses to push for getting explicit, verbalised consent from sexual partners; that anything outside of that verbalised, informed consent constitutes coercion and/or assault.

So, it just seems interesting to me that we are demanding higher standards for ethics around our bodies on the one hand. On the other, children's bodies are being used to encourage consumption of specific brands (as I mentioned with the H and M situation), while they're not at an age to give consent.

Sorry, and
b) I wonder if there's a spectrum in terms of the invasiveness of that activity on the kids' development of their own identity. For example, I cam imagine that the kids' clothing modelling you describe @Tilltheendoftheline was sporadic and for different items and companies. But perhaps a child who becomes some sort of high-profile 'brand ambassador' for a company over a long period of time, is at risk of not developing their own identity.

A storm brewing online

Where? On bloody twitter or facebook?

There's nothing new about the press noting the brand a child is wearing. Then printing an article mentioning it.

This doesn't mean "a deal was struck" at all.

The press are constantly naming the labels of the royal children.

H&M have printed it because it's good for their brand.

Consent is an odd one too.

Kids cant consent. They dont have that capacity. Their parents consent in their behalf.

Yes there is a difference between, say being a brand ambassador and what I did.

However, I did jobs (on average) every other weeks. When I child because a brand ambassador, they would actually work far less than that. It could even be a small as a 2-4 photo shoots per year and nothing outside that

Most big companies, that use children in the advertising also have teams of people to ensure the kids are being looked after admittedly not for the benefit of the child. But because companies do not want to be seen exploiting or causing a child stress or emotional harm in anyway.

I'd like links to the "storm that's brewing" please.

I think you're a Daily Mail journalist, OP.

Good luck with the article.

I mean, this is just anti-Meghan and Harry stuff, isn't it? It has nothing to do with consent for images from children at all.

The fact is there's no "storm brewing" at all. Just a number of articles about the fact the child wore an H&M outfit.

This is utter crap OP.

Unless you can show us the "storm" with links? Something I've missed?

Children have been in media for as long as media has been around. Think theatrical plays and therefore resulting advertising for the play and this goes back over 100 years. Add to that all the movies, tv shows, all types of adverts that include children for holidays, food, anything really to do with families, toys etc.

Show us the links to the "brewing storm" @magpiemolly.

The wording of your original post - maybe unintentionally - raised the issue of parents 'using' their child's image for personal profit i.e. the parents' personal profit.

I would guess there is a range of situations involved in under-18s earning money, in whatever capacity (although yes, images are more long-lasting than a babysitting job). From the consent of the child to how much the child vs the parent benefits. So I don't think there is a single answer.

From a baby (no consent possible) whose earnings go 100% to the parent(s), to a 17-year-old who is saving 100% of their earnings for their future plans. What if the baby's parent(s) were struggling financially? That some extra income took away some of the pressure and allowed more time and energy for their baby? What if the 17-year olds parent(s) had brought them up to believe that money defines your self-worth, so if you don't have a certain level of wealth you are a loser?

So I would say the 'best interests of the child' should come first, but there are all sorts of factors that determine what are the best interests, and rarely a simple answer.

For myself, DD is a promising dancer. A potential future is that at 15 or 16 she wants to audition for professional performances (other potential futures include her deciding that she wants to stop dancing and do something else instead, which is 100% OK with me). Should I allow that? How much impact on schoolwork would be allowable? If she is dancing that seriously, it will cost quite a bit of money (it costs quite a bit already, with 10-12 hours of dance training already) - what proportion of her (potential) earnings should be spent on the training that allow her to earn that money? What if I am on a low income and struggling to pay for her dance training?

I've just looked at the H and M website and I am shocked.

If H and M have given permission for a collaboration then it is in exceptionally bad taste to use their child's image like that. Is it a deliberate ploy for them to look like they are in touch with average people by dressing him in and H and M outfit after loads of criticism about what Meghan wears?

If H and M have just taken pictures of Archie and stuck them on their website then it's pretty tasteless of them to use his image to sell clothes and Harry and Meghan need to be more careful about what brands they dress him in in future to stop it happening again. A royal baby should never be used for advertising like that.

I know Kate and William's kids have sometimes worn high street items but the seller has not used that on their websites as direct advertising as far as I can tell.

and M link

Do we know whether they’ve given permission for the image to be used? It seems incredibly unlikely for many reasons.