Can someone enlighten me to the law re; posting pics on internet of other peoples DC?

[LynetteScavo]

Personally, I wouldn't post a pic of someone elses DC on the internet with out their permission - just out of politeness.

I've quickly Googled, but still not sure about the law re posting images of children on line.

What would be considered an indecent image, what if I'd not given permission for my DC to have their photo taken at school, and another child takes a photo in school/at school disco/ on school trip and posts it on line.

What if a photo were taken on a school trip of my child naked in the shower, and it were posted on line?

Now, this hasn't happened, and I may have an over active imagination, but but what if it did happen?

The Police/CPS/NCA/IWF grade images as to their severity from 1 upwards, depending on the image. You can ask the site to remove images of your child, or if there's images of a child naked in a shower you can report it to the IWF (internet watch foundation) and they will remove it.

The photographer owns the copyright of any photo they take, the subject has no right over it (although a privately owned location can stop photographers taking photos in that location). Posting an image of anyone (adult or child) online is not illegal.

Of course if it's an indecent photo then different laws come into play.

Not quite, blue. If they are professional pictures, taken using skill and expertise then yes, there is copyright (but as such they would have to ask the person in the picture for permission to be able to put these up on a web site etc). If they are snaps with a phone taken by your best mate or your mum, then no, there's no copyright, but either way the person in the picture has to consent to their image being distributed. If they are taken my your mum consent is implied. People have a right to privacy so you can ask the website to remove them.

Is that correct LadySybill?. I have always been under the impression that I own the copyright to any photographs that I have taken, whether with skill and expertise or through sheer careless in pressing the shutter button at the wrong moment. And surely it doesn't matter whether I take it with a Leica or the cheapest of camera-phones, it is a photograph taken by me, and I own the copyright.

It's not illegal but it could be a civil wrong, namely misuse of private information. Depends on the circumstances in which it was taken and what it shows.

JK Rowling sued a newspaper for misuse of private information on behalf of her infant son for taking a photo of them walking down a public street, and won.

Quinions It was several years ago when I studied copyright as part of my law degree. I'll see if I can find you a link, 2 secs.

I have to go to work but I've found this so far. I'll take another look later.

/www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright This may help. Section 4 is all about watermarking snaps/adding copyright notices '© LadySybs 2015' for example. It looks as though this applies to professional pictures though.

I imagine the problem with posting your own snaps on the internet, is that no one knows where they have come from. For all Tom Brown knows, you've copied it from another site, where it's been copied from another site and so on. There's no way of actually knowing where the image originated so it would be impossible to ask for permission from the original owner to reproduce it, hence why it's not covered. Stick the little '© name date' at the bottom or a watermark on it, and it's different as the owner can be traced.

I'm afraid the advice from LadySybil is wrong in almost every respect.

All photos are copyright including photos taken with a phone. See here for guidance from the Intellectual Property Office. As that document says on page 1, "most images and photos are likely to be protected by copyright".

Under UK law there is no need to add a copyright notice to a photo (or, indeed, any other type of copyright work). It is copyright automatically. Anyone wishing to copy the photo must have permission from the copyright holder. Being unable to identify the copyright holder is no defence.

In the UK individuals do not have any general right to control the use of their image. If the photo is taken in a public place the photographer can do whatever they want with it. If it was taken in a situation where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy it cannot be published without their consent. So, for example,

If the photo is indecent we move away from copyright law and onto criminal law. Anyone posting an indecent photo can be sued.

Please see the bottom of page 3 of the link.

"I want to take photos on my smartphone and upload them to the web
If someone takes a photo, copyright can exist in that photo. However, people taking photos on their smartphone and uploading them to the internet on social media sites should be careful when they take photos of copyright works (such as paintings) when they are the main subject of the photo.
If someone takes a photo of a work in copyright (such as a painting by an artist that is still alive), and it is the main focus of the image, using that photo on the web would be an infringement of copyright. In other words, people are allowed to take a photo of a room of paintings, but would need to be careful about copyright infringement if taking photos of specific paintings.
Taking a photo of something that is not covered by copyright is not an infringement of copyright – for example, taking photos of animals, people or landscapes."

It is copyrighted automatically, you're right. I work mostly with US law though, where they stick the little © at the bottom. People in the UK don't have to do this but a lot of photographers do.

There's a lot of scope for 'may' and 'likely' as it depends on why the image was produced etc.

Civil and criminal law is different. Under criminal law it's the CPS who bring proceedings on behalf of the crown, and they don't sue they prosecute.

You can take a photo of whoever you want, with a camera or a phone, and do what you want with it without permission UNLESS it's for commercial purposes, eg advertising, where you would need to get a model release form signed. Different rules apply on private premises, eg shopping malls may have a blanket ban on photography.

I'm afraid that is partially wrong. There is no legal requirement to have a model release form under any circumstances in the UK. Some agencies or publishers will want to see one but the photographer will not be in any trouble legally if they use a photo commercially without a model release. It is, however, a sensible safeguard if there is any doubt as to whether or not the model had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is also a sensible safeguard where the subject of the photo is a child.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23514738

The legal case linked above may set a new precedent

The thread seems to have got side tracked with corrections and whatnot, so, back to the op...

"Personally, I wouldn't post a pic of someone elses DC on the internet with out their permission - just out of politeness.

I've quickly Googled, but still not sure about the law re posting images of children on line.

What would be considered an indecent image, what if I'd not given permission for my DC to have their photo taken at school, and another child takes a photo in school/at school disco/ on school trip and posts it on line.

What if a photo were taken on a school trip of my child naked in the shower, and it were posted on line?

Now, this hasn't happened, and I may have an over active imagination, but but what if it did happen?"

If it's not an image of your child in the shower, you can complain to the web site and they should remove it, failing that try Google support.google.com/legal/answer/3110420?hl=en, you'd file a privacy complaint support.google.com/policies/troubleshooter/2990837?rd=2, they would moderate the image and take things from there.

As I said up there, indecent images are graded en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale. The CPS have a lot of information about this but it's very heavy and goes into sentencing etc. A naked child in a shower would be one of these grades, IIRC, so it would need to be removed.
If it did happen, your first port of call is to the Internet Watch Foundation www.iwf.org.uk. If you see an image of an unknown child, then this needs to be referred to CEOPS who concentrate on trying to find the child and making them safe (the IWF concentrate on removing material from the web). The most important thing to remember here is not to forward the image to anyone. Not your mum, your DH or anyone else. Get in touch with IWF/CEOPS and they will tell you what to do. If they request the URL, then send it only to them.

I'd imagine you'd have to consent to your child being photographed if they were at school or on school premises, but should this happen your first port of call is the web site. Then grumble at the school for the lack of supervision

Oh, that's fab cbtaylor. This bit of the article though...

"In a two-minute judgment, Mr Justice Birss said there was "no such thing as a general right by a famous person to control the reproduction of their image".

"The taking of the photograph is not suggested to have breached Rihanna's privacy," he continued."

If she's already famous and plastered over the media, then it's probably different to John Smith from No 24 who's never been on TV. His private life could be more protected then Rihanna's due to the lives they lead. Maybe. The "passing off" judgement was interesting though