Child being used in huge ad without consent

[Ferniefernfernfern]

Background: My child (early primary school age) plays a sport at the local club and recently, there was a photographer taking pictures of his tournament. The pictures inevitably cropped up on Facebook and Instagram. Usually we don't allow our children to appear on social media but decided to let it go, as the tournament was free and we didn't want to make a fuss.

However, one of the pictures of him has now been made into a 6 foot tall banner advertising the club. I had previously emailed them (about 3 months ago) letting them know my children's images cannot be used for commercial purposes. My kids are in the minority where we live, so I think their look makes them particularly marketable. I've had to ask for their pictures to be taken down by virtually every single school and activity they've ever participated in.

I've just followed up on my previous email suggesting that they remunerate my son in the form of covering his half-term camp costs (around £100).

AIBU? My background is in advertising/TV and I know how easy it is for businesses to exploit children's images without proper payment or consent, but maybe I'm overthinking it.

@Mumofnarnia exactly though. This isn’t that context (although your modelling career sounds fantastic)

This is the context of a parent seeing their child’s image used in a way they don’t want to and didn’t consent to. But even if she did tick a box to say ‘yes to social media’ for example, she can withdraw that at any time because of laws that have been put in place.

What I’m saying is - she is allowed to withdraw her consent from that release form (whether she has or hasn’t signed it isn’t clear I don’t think?) in this context.

Completely and entirely different when someone pays a model and that model signs a contract.

As the images are advertising the club- which is a community club, and presumably not for profit, it is not really reasonable to expect to be paid, so I wouldn't press this point, you can't prove it's for commercial purposes, because it's not.
I would, however, expect an apology for your child's image to being used without consent, and I would formally inform them, in writing, to cease and desist from using the images.
Then if they don't comply you need to send a solicitor's letter threatening to sue, at which stage they will tell you how they think they have implied consent, or desist.
I think you are letting the fact you work in advertising cloud your judgement- are you offended by the use of the image, or are you looking for a payday?

@KaleQueen The op said she has not consented at all. Not to anything let alone withdraw consent.

If the pictures are being used to advertise the club then regardless of whether the child is a model or not the same rule still applies. They should have obtained consent for use of pictures for pictures posted for general non commercial reasons. They then should have obtained separate permissions for the pictures of the child to be used for advertising purposes.

There’s a huge difference to giving consent for pictures of let’s say Sunday afternoon’s 5-0 win being posted on social media just for information and where the pictures are for non advertising, non commercial, non profit use….to the same pictures then being used as a banner to advertise the club. Both would require separate consent forms to be signed as the usage of pictures then changes from non commercial use to commercial use.

So she hasn’t contented to pictures being used in that way, so is upset? As her children need to be protected?
But if they pay her, that’s okay?
👍

Oh no. This ladies whole home Ed journey was posted all over Instagram.

we work in cyber security and we don’t alllow photos of our kids online at all. You think that like you said above. But you’d be surprised at the amount of stuff this woman posted online about her kids. It’s ever so common too, I think they feel the need to validate what they’re doing for their kids and how great it is. I mean time and date stamps and then location was always switched on. Incredibly frightening. Which is why when I kept saying please don’t post my children on social media she had such vitriol towards me. Because I guess I ruined her picture perfect marketing home education….

i mean I didn’t even say delete the photos. I said juts edit them. So take the edges off or put a sticker over their face. But knowing what I know about internet safety. I want as little details posted about my kids as much as I can.

Shes not the only one though. Tons of them like to post their lives on social media and I think nearly all of them do it to validate because you get so much discouraging remarks made that you do feel like you soend your life validating why you’re kids aren’t in school you know?

Absolutely brilliant!!!! 😂

Bloody hell. She is being unreasonable and I can see her motivation but its blinded her to a proper perspective on this.

Can I ask what you think are the main dangers in terms of child photos on the internet? Do you not allow due to your jobs or what you know?

I do have some of DS on my FB page (which is as locked down as poss but I am sure there are ways if you know how) but I did read, for example, that a lot of child porn is generated using quite innocent online photos being manipulated.

Also a young family member is interested in cyber security as a career. Any advice for her @Cerealkiller4U ?

So basically you don’t care about your kid’s privacy as long as you get some money out of it.

No, they should have asked PERMISSION for his image to be used! You had previously told them not to, now they have you want paying?
So what is it?? You don't want your childs picture out there because of potentially being exploited or it can be so long as they pay you?
Have you asked for payment in the past and been refused and that's why you've had to have your child's picture taken down by virtually every school and activity they've taken part in in the past???

YANBU to not consent to images and ask them to be removed.
YABU to muddy the water and ask for payment as this suggests actually you are fine with them being used.

But she is fine with it being used if they pay a sufficient sum.

Do you think companies should be able to use anybody they wish as a model for advertising without paying them?

Four years ago my daughter, grandaughter and myself were stopped in the street and asked if we would mind if they filmed us. We were on a tv ad numerous times a day for about 6 months. We were delighted, we were given an umbrella because it was raining.

Roll on last year and my grandaughter was on an advert numerous times an hour, its still being played this year. We love it, she wasn’t payed and we dont care. We love it when we hear her on the radio.

totally confused by this post as originally thought it was a GDPR or safeguarding issue.

is this Padel tennis by any chance? It’s a new sport here and I’ve noticed that certain clubs aren’t up to speed on the use of images?

That's not what I said.

Op suggests she has privacy concerns for not allowing her children to appear on photos. That's her right.

It's disingenuous though to then say 'the price to overcome said privacy concerns is £100'.

If you're willing to accept payment it's not really about privacy is it?

Look, I explained very clearly how it works.

When you take part in an event, the event organiser is responsible for getting the participants to sign releases which will include commercial and editorial use of their images.

The event organiser then issues accreditations, either commercial or editorial or both to photographers. For bigger events photographers have to go through a formal process applying weeks in advance etc.

Once accredited, they can only use their images according to the terms of their accreditation. So if editorial, very narrow indeed . Only allowed sales is not the "press", definition which is now enlarged to include specialist blogs and specialist news Facebook pages for instance.

The commercial photographer will see their terms of use limited by the organiser which can include selling images to participants and/or the public, advertising for the organising committee, and other uses i may have forgotten.

For small blue events, editorial accreditations will be irrelevant so often the only photographer will be a commercially accredited one. They will be working for the organiser and it's the organiser's job to sort out appropriate consent forms.
The commercial photographer will likely have given their photos to the organiser who is then free to use them according to the releases they made the participants sign.

SM use can fall under either editorial (the Facebook page of "football news from Aberdeen" or "junior judo in the UK" or even "Joe's top cycling reports") or advertising (promo post for the Kent tiddlywinks league).
It's a grey area photographers often tear their hair out about as different federations will interpret these areas differently and have varied expectations. (Not to mention those who still think editorial should mean the front page of the print edition of the Times only, a ship that sailed 30 years ago in terms of actual media practice).

Event photography, for instance wedding or club photography, is a whole different ball game with a whole different set of rules.

It's all getting a bit Duke and Duchess, isn't it?

Not cool. I'd ask for it to be taken down and as compensation to your child (its their picture) and for ignoring your express instructions, a wee gift to your child. Not excessive as they are likely finacially struggling like many such orgs.

You need to go back and read all OP’s posts. She has said nothing about privacy concerns. She told us she had emailed the club about not using her DC’s pictures for commercial purposes some months ago. And she’s clarified on here that she’s concerned about commercial exploitation not privacy. The privacy angle has been entirely pushed by other posters.

I don’t care what you say, you are mixing up event photography with pictures taken from an event used for advertising. Advertising and event photography are two different areas and a release should be signed if you wish to use pictures for advertising. This is a completely different release form to the consent form parents sign for pictures taken at the events to be used by the club for non advertising purposes! The parents should be asked to sign a separate release if the club wishes to use the images for an advertising campaigns. You have not replied to my post that I have quoted you on earlier and have instead replied to this. The pictures may have been taken at an event but that does not give the club the right to use those pictures in an advertising campaign. I’ve shot many ad campaigns and signed many releases. The release form should state what the pictures are being used for, how long they will be used for and where they will appear. This is nothing like the consent form you sign just stating you agree for them to use pictures from events.

You do realise that a commercial photography is different to events photography? A commercial photographer shoots content for advertising purposes, an event photographer shoots content to capture the moment at events. You are mixing up pictures being taken at events with editorial photography and commercial photography and the press and somehow merging them into one. What we do know here is the parents have not consented to the images taken at an event being used as an advertising campaign for the club!

“It is the organisers job to sort out the proper consent forms”
Well they haven’t done that have they so they have no right to use the images for advertising! You do release that any consent form a parent signs when their child joins the club will not specifically say that they intend to use the pictures for an advertising campaign don’t you. It usually states that the parents are giving permission for pictures to be posted on social media, in the press etc. but it rarely states that those pictures of your child will become a model or the face of the club! I have signed many similar consent forms for my own children which differ greatly to the release forms I have signed during my modelling years where I am giving my consent for a brand to use my pictures as advertising material for X amount of years.

”Once accredited, they can only use their images according to the terms of their accreditation. So if editorial, very narrow indeed . Only allowed sales is not the "press", definition which is now enlarged to include specialist blogs and specialist news Facebook pages for instance”
Yes I KNOW all this! Specialist news is different from using pictures for advertising a venue, brand, sports club or anything else!

“SM use can fall under either editorial (the Facebook page of "football news from Aberdeen" or "junior judo in the UK" or even "Joe's top cycling reports") or advertising (promo post for the Kent tiddlywinks league).
It's a grey area photographers often tear their hair out about as different federations will interpret these areas differently and have varied expectations.”
Jeez! Just posting pictures on Facebook with a caption saying “Sundays game went well we won 5-0” is different from using the damn pictures for an advertising campaign!

Not sure why you are bringing wedding photography into it. Maybe you should google the difference between rights for wedding photography, events photographs and commercial photography. Either way event photography, wedding photography and school photography are basically for capturing the moment. The pictures should not then be turned into an advertising campaign and used to advertise a business without a separate consent form being signed! Each area has its own terms and conditions. It’s not a one fits all.

How has the club done that without seeking your written consent? That's a safeguarding issue with serious potential consequences.

Also it DOESN’T MATTER if the pictures taken by the photographer had a whole bunch of terms and conditions signed that allows the club to use the pictures for advertising. It doesn’t matter about the accreditations because the issue is the club has NOT obtained a parental release to use those pictures and advertise their club! So they are NOT free to use them how they wish. They are only free to use pictures of a child for what the parent has consented for which according to the op, is nothing!
Whilst it’s possible the parents may be asked to sign consent for pictures taken to be used in the press or on social media for non advertising purposes, a parent needs to sign a separate release if the child is then to be used as a model to advertise the club!! And the parent has very clearly stated she doesn’t consent! What is it about that you don’t grasp??

These events consent is usually part of the entry conditions.

it will be in the small print somewhere. I’d be surprised if this isn’t the case here- while o/p thinks she hasn’t signed or been specifically asked for consent, it will be in either the club or the event t&c’s.

Unfortunately in this day and age photos and cameras can’t be controlled and no consent means no entry. Back in the day we used to have to sign at events if we had a camera, now it’s uncontrollable so if you go to a public event you accept photos of your child will be taken.

I don’t think you are grasping what I’m saying. I worked 25 years as a model. Consenting to pictures being taken at events is a different kettle of fish to consenting to your pictures being used for advertising material. Being used as a model to advertise something is not the same as pictures being taken of you in the public eye at events. If the club was to use pictures for advertising material where let’s say, spectators were captured in the picture but the spectators did not consent to pictures of them being used to advertise something it’s a whole different ball game to pictures just being taken where the general public are present and those pictures just being posted on social media for news stories and capturing the moment. There is a whole legal binding document that needs to be signed before consenting to your pictures being used are intended for advertising material. This differs greatly to pictures taken at events where members of the public can be seen in the background of those pictures and where those pictures are not being used to advertise or promote a business.

A picture of someone’s face is considered personal data. If you’ve previously said not to use it I’d take it to the Information Commissioner’s Office as Data privacy breach. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

Agree with @Ohnonotmeagain
A lot of events now say that.