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.

This is what I’ve been trying to say throughout this thread. Too many people are grouping events photography with commercial advertising photography and trying to merge them into one category when events photography and commercial advertising photography are two completely separate entities that require different forms of consent.

It’s ok people saying “well if you go to an event then pictures are going to be taken so you have to expect your pictures will be in the public eye in this day and age”.
Yes that’s correct but there’s a whole other legal issue when pictures taken at events are then used for advertising material to promote a business. Pictures taken at events where you can clearly see spectators faces for example cannot be used for advertising material without obtaining a signed release from each and every spectator captured in that photograph. This should not be confused with events photography where the pictures are just being circled in the general press and on social media for information and news purposes. In this case the pictures are merely being used for forms of entertainment and information sources rather than for advertising a specific business/ club/ brand/ event.

Please read my post above this where I have explained this very clearly

Haha. No I have a lot of knowledge. You can’t group events photography where pictures taken of Joe Public with advertising campaigns. You sound clueless!

I would hit the roof if this happened to my child, but we have specific safeguarding concerns around their images being shared online or in ways their location can be identified.

I'm also trying to inoculate them against this culture of "share everything about your life with the world" and give them a chance at a semblance of privacy as they grow up and start applying for jobs etc.

For some children it’s parent preference not to have their kids pictures out there. For some it could have serious consequences. Perhaps the kids have moved away from parental abuse and if that parent tracks them down it will begin again. Or perhaps the family are in witness protection and the child’s life could be at stake. I know these are extreme situations and maybe rare but these sorts of cases are why the laws exist. It’s really important to get parental permission to use children’s images.

This, 100 %

@Mumofnarnia I'm not expecting you to get it at this point but copyright and licensing of modelling v live and sporting events is vastly different.
Your modelling experience is not relevant here.

It is entirely possible the organiser slipped their duty and failed to gather consent in any shape or form. In this case the OP can protest. It's quite lijely though it was contained in the small print of the entry forms.

The legalities of sporting event photography are so complex, it has to be said, that even major governing bodies, prominent athletes, agents, and equipment providers / sponsors get confused. It's not surprising this thread and the OP and other posters are convinced they are jn the right thinking subjects have rights to remuneration but it'snot the case. Often local clubs get into a pickle for failing to grasp the subtleties, although it's generally the photographers who are getting deprived of earnings and involved in disputes.

@Mumofnarnia another complexity is that if say it was nike wanting to advertise the shoes children were wearing, they could not use the commercially accredited pics from the event even if they paid. Normally the commercial usage is limited to the clubs / organising committees etc for event promotion.
They'd have to organise a model shoot with the children where they did get paid for that.

Expect certain niche sport federations have agreements with equipment suppliers for sponsored athletes... it's complicated.

You have missed it
Using photographs of a child in an advert/banner/publicity shoot without predetermined consent is illegal

This one is still rumbling on I see. Honestly it’s as the kids been used in Times Square for Chanel or something. It’s a banner at a small local activity group.

Yes I know copyright and licensing for events differs greatly from modelling, that’s what I’ve been saying throughout this entire thread.
The point of the thread is that the op has said she has NOT consented to the pictures being used for anything so they should not be using them AT ALL! Let alone for advertising.

You cannot say that the op may have missed it in the small print as you have not seen what was written so we just have to go by what the op has said on her thread, that she did not consent.

A consent form needs to be signed for any form of advertising material. It moves from within the realms of sporting photography when you then start using those pictures for advertising something that was not agreed on - regardless of what usage rights the club have signed up for, the parent always has to give consent first. And yes they should have organised a model shoot with that child if they intended to enlarge a pic and use it as a 6 foot banner to promote their club.

Exactly.

Pertinent points here:

1. the OP wrote to the club some months ago to explicitly say that her kids’ likeness could not be used for any commercial purposes. Commercial includes advertising.
2. Whatever T&Cs she may have agreed to previously were nullified by this email
3. Any T&Cs she signed up to for the tournament are between her and the tournament organisers - they do not confer permission to the club (a third party, I believe - although this isn’t totally clear). Point 2 still relevant if tournament was organised by club.
4. Payment requested is not a ‘modelling fee’, it is damages as suggested settlement for the unauthorised use of image rights. So anything about ‘no one gets paid for sports pictures’ is entirely besides the point.
5. People’s individual feelings about OP being grabby or vain are both mean and entirely irrelevant to the legal position.

In fact, I’ll put it another way then shall I. If my child attended a local football club and I signed consent stating that I allow pictures taken at events and games to be posted on social media and in the press for general information and news then that’s all the pictures should be used for. If the club then decide to blow up a picture of my child and make it into a 6 foot banner to advertise the club I would not be happy and I would have expected separate consent to be obtained from me as it has now moved from within the confines of event photography to using my child as a model.
There is a huge difference between photographing public events and then going on to using those pictures taken at events as advertising material. Because members of the public captured on those photographs at events (such as spectators) cannot be used for advertising material unless you obtain consent from each spectator.
You seem to be completely missing the point that events photography does not automatically mean the pictures taken at events are allowed to be used as advertising material. If that was the case then pubs and restaurants would be using pictures of their customers taken at past events to promote their menus and future events and they would be using pictures of their customers on menus (those lifestyle pictures you see on some pub menus taken of families or couples having a meal together) but they don’t, they use models posing as customers who have had to sign release forms stating that they agree for those pictures to be used and have been paid. You keep talking about copyright but copyright isn’t the same as obtaining consent from those being used in pictures for advertising material.

Update: This post really seems to have touched a nerve! The club emailed me back. They apologised for the oversight and let me know that they’ve changed the marketing materials he was a part of. They also registered him for the camp for free. I will be depositing that money into my son’s savings account. I actually decided to call the marketing manager, as I’ve done some work with him before and we had a good chat. I let him know the history we’ve had in the past with people using our children’s photos. He said it was no problem and was a negligible cost to them. He said they are updating the club membership policies to include language around photo consent. To answer some people’s questions, not a community club that runs off volunteers or anything like that. I wasn’t rude or pushy in my email-very polite. I appreciate the commenters who gave actual practical and legal advice. I do think my kids’ images are valuable-and so are yours, by the way! Social media basically uses them as a money machine and everyone should be protective of your children and your children’s rights to their own image. This case was printed material which is separate from the social media aspect, so I suppose mentioning that confused people 🧠 😵‍💫.

Also think this forum should be renamed Mums Attack because…geez! 🤣

Excellent outcome all round.

You’ll still be seen as vain and grabby by some, but everything you’ve said about the value of our likeness is so important.

I completely agree. The op specifically stated she wrote to the club stating she did not give permission for the commercial use of pictures being used. Yet too many people are claiming that because the pictures were taken at a sporting event then they can be used to advertise the club.
Too many people on here are confusing events photography with advertising photography. Just because a photographer may have captured a pictures at a public event, it doesn’t mean that those pictures containing everybody attending that event (including members of the public) can be used in advertising material for a specific club without obtaining consent.
Anyway op has updated now, the club have admitted their mistake.

@LadyTable

SHE wants to get her hands on the money and not give it to her child!

Just like the advertisers also want to make money out of her CHILD.

The only person getting a raw deal here is the kid who won't see a penny of it.

Except she specifically says she would like the payment to be in the form of her son's half term camp. Which presumably is something he will enjoy, rather than her. Here you are, it's in her very first post:

"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)."

Bold of you also to assume you know what she would use money for even if she hadn't (very clearly) said she didn't expect payment in the form of cash.

I would also wallow in all the free publicity for a future star of advertising.

Well done. Thats a great outcome.

Regardless of op’s reasons, she has clearly stated she wrote to them a while back and asked them not to use any pictures of him for commercial purposes. The ethnicity of the child is irrelevant.
We have to remember that at the centre of all this, is a child who just wants to play football and join a camp. It would be shitty of op to strip her child of such opportunities and his love of football just because of a picture that the club used that op did not consent to.

I too would be mad, but asking for money, why would you do that? How does money change what happened. You should have signed paperwork saying you did not want your child's photograph used under any circumstances, having a copy yourself. How will money make you feel any better?