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.

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?

@Ferniefernfernfern has updated with her outcome but to answer your question about money - this is exactly how the law works.

Money is used as a way to compensate someone for the damage caused. It's not about 'feeling better'. It is about unauthorised commercial use that the user would normally have to pay for (pay for a model, pay for permission to use in particular ways - commercially a national campaign licence will cost a lot more than one tiny image on a website).

Same as if your neighbour installs a firing range in their back garden. If they don't stop and the noise is causing you a nuisance in law, you are entitled to money - compensation, damages - for the loss of quiet enjoyment of your land.

It is so odd the way everyone has got so fixated on 'money' like this is something heinous and out of the ordinary. If OP had sued the club on behalf of her son for invasion of privacy, data protection etc, she would have been awarded some damages. Courts do this sort of thing day in day out. Organisations pay out and offer to pay to avoid court day in day out.

The child has suffered 'legal damage' so would be entitled to compensation. On one view it's not for a parent to not take the money owed for that and stick it in a compound interest account until the child is 18. The entitlement to compensation for use of their image is the childs.

I thought your issue was one of Safeguarding?..

Of course your post has hit a nerve OP, basically you made it sound like you don't allow your children's pictures to be on social media, as you want to protect them from people with bad intentions, which is why a lot of us don't allow it. However, then it became clear that you don't mind them being on there, as long as they get paid for it, which sounds a bit hypocritical and money grabbing to me. Had you titled the thread something like, 'Child's Pictures Being Used for Commercial Purposes, Should They Be Paid?', people may have got a totally different impression before even reading the thread.

It depends on what you consented to when you initially signed up. If you consented to all uses of images then they have not done anything wrong. I don't allow use for marketing/ promotional materials. If you didn't allow this then you should simply insist all marketing materials carrying the image be removed/ destroyed. By giving them the option to pay you would then be allowing all use in perpetuity in all mediums.

Very true. And there’s always the issue of exploitation which comes under what you said about the user would normally have to pay for a model. However, in this case the club have saved themselves a lot of money by using the op’s child for commercial advertising use rather than paying for a model. So they are in a way exploiting op’s child as they are using him as free advertising material when in an ideal world they should be paying a model.

What a hot take!

RTFT.

Or just the OP where she clearly says she wrote to the club to expressly deny the use of her child’s likeness for commercial reasons.

Payment does not automatically confer the rights for all media, in perpetuity, worldwide. The terms would need to be agreed commensurate to the fee.

Also, as has been explained numerous times already, the OP was negotiating a payment for damages owed by the club using the likeness without permission.

This is not the same as a modelling fee.

Paying to belong to the club does not negate the necessary permission being given. As you have not given your permission, this makes it unlawful. Write to them and ask to see your written permission as required by law for minors images to be used!
we can’t even take pictures at the Xmas concert, never mind putting things on billboards!!

Understand you being unhappy with childs images being used , definitely argue that .
Don't ask for money though for for free camp or whatever it's one thing laughing at the other.

The school has very clearly broken Safeguarding guidelines and have potentially put your child at risk of being inappropriately approached. I run a Volleyball Club that includes children from age 13 and our processes include a default opt out for permission to publish photos of them. Not one parent has overidden the default.
Write a formal letter immediately stating the situation, the fact that you have not signed an authorisation permitting the use of your child's images in any format and request they send you a copy of their safeguarding policy, warning them they are potentially (and likely) to be in breach of Safeguarding rules which you can then report to the Local Authority (assuming it's a state school - if not the board of governors) although you could still contact the governors if they're a state school too.
You have weakened your case by requesting a payment, as if this will put it right and you are marketing your child. My advice would be to formally withdraw your request; you do not have to explain. But you can't have it both ways.

Actually the op has not weakened her case by asking for payment. Because the op’s child’s picture was being used for marketing material. The issue is that the op wrote them an email prior to this stating that she does not want her child’s picture being used for commercial purposes. The club went ahead regardless and used the pictures of op’s child for commercial marketing purposes. Usually in these cases where someone wants to use a child for advertising purposes they would go through the proper channels of hiring a model - a child model in this case. However, the football club has saved money by doing this and has exploited op’s child by using the child’s picture as free advertising when they have used that child as a model, therefore should have been paid.
This is not the same as a safeguarding breach. It’s a breach if usage rights of the pictures as they have used them for promotional marketing material. A safeguarding breach probably also comes under this but this is not the main issue the op was talking about.

Anyway, op has now come back to update the thread and has stated they have admitted they were negligent and have compensated op in the form of letting the op’s child join the camp for free.

They've gone against your explicit wishes, so I feel it's fair to either ask for it to be removed or ask for compensation

Hmmmm I'm glad you got what you wanted but as for accusing mumsnet posters of 'attacking you'... you do realise you posted in AIBU? Literally asking people if you were being unreasonable? Obviously lots of people felt you were, but if you don't want people telling you that, AIBU might not be the best place to post! Just a thought...

How disappointed you must be in the amicable solution to the issue.

How narrow minded you must be to think someone would be disappointed in an amicable solution

That would be a reasonable response if the many of the posters who attacked OP had actually stuck to the facts they were given instead of making shit up.

Glad you got a good response from the club, OP.

There is a reason that photos used in public promotions should have the consent of those involved and it is not just fiscal. Data protection and child protection are the same. The assumption that there is no safety issue for the child ie a parent who has left an abusive situation and may not want the other parent knowing where they are should not be assumed.

Many parents do not want to post images of their children publicly at least not on a bill board and that is their right. Public means anyone from the general public has access to the image, it is not linked to financial promotions, but also includes them.

Nobody has said there is no safety issue. However, the main issue of the op was that they have used the child’s image in an advert without permission. It’s one thing to obtain consent from an organisation taking pictures of your child but it’s quite another to then use those pictures for advertising purposes ie. On a 6 foot banner.

Yes consent should be obtained for usage of all pictures of children that are taken and are to be posted somewhere. However, it becomes a whole separate legal issue altogether (separate from the safeguarding one) when a business then starts to use someone’s picture (be it a child or an adult) to advertise their business without gaining consent from those who are featured in the picture. This is why the op wanted financial compensation because for such ads they should have booked a child model and paid them, however, in this case the club didn’t and has been using their child as a model for free advertising. Plus there is the issue of wanting compensation for damages by doing so unlawfully.

did no one ask you before making a 6ft image of your child? in this day and age i find that very surprising? especially given the club already know your preferences on your child appearing on social media?

i assume, when you say you let the recent photos on facebook go, did they ask you first if they were ok? or did they just post them? perhaps the club have assumed that since you've let those ones go... its now there on social media for the whole world to see, that you have changed your mind?

What is the point of your first paragraph? OP has been exceedingly clear that they did not ask her permission and was obviously surprised too.

The idea that consent can be assumed because of no voiced objections to a different abuse of the image is not founded in good sense or the law.

Nice attempt to justify corporate malfeasance by blaming the victim!