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.

Yes, I guess if you are happy for money then asking for compensation is ok, but you say about models getting paid - but would you have agreed to his image being used for £100? Will they continue to use it for years to come?

What is your issue - that’s the photo has been used at all or that it has been used and hasn’t been paid? It’s a fair criticism but get it sorted in your mind first. If they say, ok we’d like to use your son’s photos and will pay you, would that be a suitable solution? The club should have a photo use policy or cover this in their Data Protection Policy. Regardless of payment, they should not use photos without consent.

I was with you until you suggested reimbursement. If you don't want your child's picture around for safety reasons that should be respected 100%. They shouldn't have done it without consent either way, but to expect reimbursement from a community club that is unlikely to actually make any profit and does not use professional models is unreasonable.

YANBU, but if you ask for payment then I'd say that's tacit acknowledgment of their right to use your images. Either insist they take them down - all of them - and never use them again without your permission or ask for payment.

I agreed up to the point where you l/your DC could have been compensated for it. I wouldn't be happy about my DC's image being made so public, no, and I'm be making a formal complaint but I don't think you've helped your case by trying to negotiate with money.

So you are vehemently against children having their privacy violated unless you are being paid for it. And they say there is no price on principles!

Yes I agree with this. Also shows that it will cost them either way - either cost of new signs, cost of free camp or cost of legal fees should you pursue this. At least a free camp is no cash out of pocket for them so it's a decent compromise and your son will benefit.

Your not in the wrong here. I would be absolutely livid if any of my children ended up on a huge advertising banner without my permission. Did you sign a consent form? Do not take money from them.

I limit massively what is posted online about my children and rarely consent to anything being posted online by any group etc.

I actually had serious words with my dcs school a few months ago as they had the BBC filming a group of kids in a "safe walk to school route" advert. The parents of those kids had consented which was fine but I had not consented for my children to be filmed crossing the pedestrian crossing (and actually obstructed by the safe waking film crew) then filmed going into school with there school logos on there jumpers present. The school got told by me in writing under no circumstances should the BBC crew have been allowed to film at peak time whilst most children were walking to school and they had best contact the BBC and have all footage of my children deleted or I would be raising a formal GPDR breach against them. The footage was deleted very quickly. There are very strict laws around GPDR for foot reasons.

Ps everything I sign my child up now to asks consent for photos - it's ridiculous on their part they didn't learn their lesson and they need to learn it now.
What if you had fled from dv and were living in a secret address. The perpetrator could easily see the sign and know which club to snatch the child with or hit you over the head with a hammer when you collect him. I'd make that point very clear to them too.

She has not fucked it up at all. The club is a commercial enterprise but they want to use the image for free? She is actually being generous suggesting a small renumeration rather than that they redo all their ads.

Is the issue that they used his picture or that they haven't paid you to do so?

Personally, it wouldn't matter if I were offered £100, £1000 or a free pony. I simply would not consent to the use of my child's image in such a way, especially without being asked in advance, and I would take all necessary legal steps to have the image removed. I wouldn't be muddying the water by trying to negotiate a payment. Either it's a matter of principle and safeguarding or it's a matter of money, and the advice that's relevant to you will be different in those different situations.

agree with this. you’re sending mixed signals.

Totally demand payment. If his image is worth that much to them, they should pay for it.

I've had to ask for their pictures to be taken down by virtually every single school and activity they've ever participated in.

Really? Speaking from the school point of view, we have to get consent from each child re sharing photos before they even start with us, so this is a huge thing. Have you signed a document like this with the school?

But would you change your mind for a few quid? That's the potential difference here.

My post says nothing about privacy. I think their image is valuable-especially in this day and age-and shouldn’t be exploited by businesses. It should belong to them and be theirs to benefit from. Sorry for the confusion.

I can’t tell if you want privacy or money.

If it's a money thing, get them an agent?

I disagree. OP would be reconfirming that the images cannot be used and is asking for compensation for the images already having been used.

YANBU OP I'd be furious (especially given they're a minority, the club is exploiting their ethnicity). Personally I'd be asking for them to take the posters down, but I think asking for payment and refusing permission for any future images is fair enough. Probably easier for the club than taking them down.

You shouldn't have asked for money

But. You've made your position very clear

I'd be seeking legal advice

This is a safeguarding issue. They need consent to use a child's image. You and your children could be fleeing domestic violence; your child could be adopted. There are lots of reasons why it's not safe to use a child's image. You didn't give them consent. I'd ask for no images of your child to be used EVER. Asking for money /subs is reasonable but I don't think £100 is worth it.

Sorry no you are being unreasonable. I was with you saying you didn't want your dc used as poster children because of their ethnicity but you can't then demand payment for use. You either object to their image being used or not, it's not a commercial transaction

This is very wrong of the club and the photographer (and agency if there is one involved for the marketing)

However, asking £100 is too low. I’ve just seen an Ella job request for at home clips of little ones eating their product with remuneration of £300.

As pp have said, get legal advice

It's fine and appropriate to express disappointment that your directions regarding your child's privacy haven't been respected and then, now that the image has already been used, asked for compensation. This is exactly how things work in commercial or legal spaces.

The financial compensation is as much a penalty to the party who broke the agreement as it is compensation to the party who was wronged.

I don't know why so many commenters feel so confused by it.