Photos of dd made public - no consent given and im FUMING!!

[somethinghastogive]

Hi.
Can anyone advise of what legal action i can take, if any?
DH was best man at a wedding of his best friend from school days. Bride to be and i dont get along. Myselfand dd still went as dh wanted us there. The photos have been made public without us knowing content. Just looked at them and during the wedding bride has taken our daughter off and had photos taken with her. Our daughter is 3. I am soooo angry. Can i do anything about this? Both my dh and i gave NO permission for pic's to be taken of our dd and she at no point asked our permission.
Thankyou in advance.

[CinnabarRed]

Mark Bridger knew April Jones in real life. They lived in the same small community, April went to school with his daughter, and Bridger knew April and her parents well enough to invite her to a sleepover with his daughter. That isn't speculation, it's fact.

[CinnabarRed]

Assuming he's guilty, of course - which he may not be.

[StealthOfficialCrispTester]

"I really don't care if some stranger I don't know and will never meet is looking at their photos, even if they're masturbating at the time"

I have to say I agree. Obviously it's not something I care to think about, but assuming they are a true stranger and the danger to me/my children is nil then we are not affected. Obviously child porn is a huge huge problem because it is linked with child abuse. Not disputing that. But I don't see any reason not to put pictures of my children on th internet (in fact there are some on my profile...shameless plug)

[doubleshotespresso]

Cinnabar i nominate you for the MN Award for Common Sense Postings

Brilliant thread

[CinnabarRed]

Why on earth did I get deleted?

[NotTreadingGrapes]

I was just going to ask what on earth you had said! (what did you say?)

[StealthOfficialCrispTester]

Let's hope it was a mistake - or maybe MN have a blanket ban on talking about the AJ case - that'll be it - current trial

[StealthOfficialCrispTester]

MNHQ, any chance you could re-instate Cinnabar's post with that para removed? Please....

[CinnabarRed]

Well, from memory I think I said that it gives my family great pleasure to post photos of my DCs on FB to show distant relatives, that quote that Stealth reposted at 16:50, and that every day hundreds of strangers that I don't know and will never meet interact with my DC in RL and that they may be harbouring inapprporiate mental images of my DC just as much as an internet stranger might.

I also commented on the AJ trial, but nothing I didn't repeat at 16:41 and that second post hasn't been deleted.

[Thisisaeuphemism]

I'm sympathetic to people who don't want photos of themselves or their children on the Internet. I don't think wanting privacy for you and your family equals paranoia about paedophiles- it's just wanting privacy. In the ops case I would just swallow it - it's modern life I get that - but it doesn't mean I would like it.

[ChunkyPickle]

What Cinnabar said definitely.

I don't quite get what emotional attachment you can have to digitally reproduced images, the copying of which in no way detracts from the originals.

I adore the pictures of my DS, even the rubbish ones, and putting them up on the internet so other people can see them doesn't change that at all - to me it's as crazy as Michael Jackson always masking his kids to think that it does.

[WhispersOfWickedness]

Totally agree with you Cinnabar, I have wondered before how to say all that without it sounding like I would actually welcome paedophiles to be using photos of my children

I have a couple of friends with children who are a bit funny about photos of their dc on Facebook. I totally respect their need for privacy and don't post pictures of their children from group activities, but I can't really understand why it bothers them. I am happy for other people to post pictures of my children, which is of course nothing to do with me thinking that my dc are the cutest and most gorgeous children to ever grace the planet

[AmberLeaf]

What a funny thread!

[ginmakesitallok]

And we STILL don't know why on earth OP went to the wedding.....

(Great posts cinnibar)

[aftermay]

I want to know what the OP's DH was doing whilst he was supposed to be watching their daughter in the disco room.

[Madamecastafiore]

Grip, get one.

[AgentProvocateur]

Cinnabar for PM!

[byah]

I am sorry I don't understand you or this. How can you go to a wedding and not have your eyes on your 3 year old every second of the time? Very open place; lots of people you don't know... how long was she away? I feel that as you were not watching over her you don't have any rights if someone wants to take a photo.
If it is a child protection issue that her photo is never shown ...well you should have protected your child .

[StealthOfficialCrispTester]

No don't agree with that byah. if there is a child protection issue, then you're saying the child should suffer to punish the parent.
However if there isn't, I think the OP is overreacting.

[byah]

No I did not mean that at all! What I meant was that as she says she is particular about Child Protection (in that she has a policy that she does not have her child's photo shown on FB etc ,) then she should look at her own basic protection of the child by not letting her out of sight in a public place with people she does not know .. She did not protect that child and if she did not want her photo taken she should have been with her.

[Xenia]

I think it is implied if you go to a wedding this day unless it says cameras banned or unless you are muslim etc that photos will be published. If you do not agree you should make that clear.

Have you asked her nicely to take them down? That is obviously the first step. Just ask. She will probably then take them down.

If she does not then say you may complain to the data protection authorities as there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and it is a direct photo of the children.

As they get older children also have rights in this area. One of mine does not have photos taken or sets out the restrictions he imposes on use of his image which I rather like - very good to have children with strong views.

As for sex well a cat can look at a queen and on the way to school unless you want to cover chidlren in Michael Jackson type masks they will be seen and some of those people may have "impure thoughts" about the children and indeed their mother but thought is not a crime.

[StealthOfficialCrispTester]

Yep but it's done now. and if there is a CP issue:
"If it is a child protection issue that her photo is never shown ...well you should have protected your child ."
Implies - tough

[Xenia]

If there is some reason because a violent person is after a child that the child must not be seen in public particularly at events where photos are very very common then the parents should make that clear. I do not think parents at a wedding should assume there will be that kind of problem, nor are they obliged to think so.

[StealthOfficialCrispTester]

No I completely agree. But if the parent has been lax, and if there is a CP issue, then I don't see why the parent shouldn't explain that afterwards and ask to have the photos taken down (politely of course). the child should not be put at risk because of the failures of the parent.
As I've said before though, I don't actually think this is the case here. Just didn't like the "well if there are CP concerns then she should have been more careful!" attitudes of previous posters.

[Branleuse]

you are massively massively overreacting. I really hope you werent horrendous to your dp over this and arent really planning to go psycho to the bride.

you are unreasonable to take part in someones special day and accept their hospitality when you clearly hate them so much and wish to cause them trouble.