Parent I don't know has taken photo of my 5 yo &uploaded to vigilante group on Facebook

[Mimitheminx4]

Hi Mumsnet

Got a lovely knock at the door today around half four to find another Mum from school I barely know holding out her phone. On her phone is a picture of me and my 5 year old getting out of my Mums car in gridlocked traffic this morning. She explains that a group has been set up on Facebook for '* schools inconsiderate drivers' and a photo of me and my little boy-with his face exposed-had been uploaded, with 19 comments attached to it. After some parents have kindly pointed this out, the picture has been reposted with his face and a circle in front of it. The caption is still the same 'another drop and runner on the zig-zags.'

We live in a super busy city. I don't drive. My husband is a plum and took the pushchair to work this morning. It was pouring with rain and I had to get my baby, toddler and little boy on the way to school in time. My mum offered to help. The traffic is gridlocked. I hop out of the car outside of the school as the cars were stuck in traffic on the slim roads, on the zig zag. There is cars stuck in front of my mum, all with brake lights on, there is also a line of traffic the other way at a standstill. My mum, could not move. I seized this opportunity, didn't think anything of it and ran him into school as the caretaker wished us good morning.

I relay this story to the admin on this page, and demand they take down our photo-the photo clearly shows the traffic/brake lights. I also relay I know they have already had my little boys face up unconcealed and I would be seeking legal advice. Here, the woman and man who run the page mock me, and tell me he is a photographer and can share any photo of my little boy he likes and I am making myself look stupid. I reiterate that I want them to remove the photo. I am polite, yet I am banned from the group and my comments are deleted leaving my face and photo up and no right to reply.
I alert other parents to the people who have taken the photos and they all report the photo to facebook,. The admin say they removed me from the group as I didn't say anything 'meaningful'. After much backlash from other parents they finally remove it at 7 pm, saying they have done so to 'keep the group civil'. Meanwhile school send out a parentmail to say they have reported it to police as many parents and pupils upset but they can't do anything and we need to report to police. I am the only person in the photos. I feel embarassed. I have reported names to police, and they advise school needs to be involved and to seek legal advice too. I am slightly worried about headteacher as she makes me feel five myself, despite the fact I am 32 but will go in tomorrow. I cannot find anything legally but I am sure it is not right that other parents are allowed to take photos of my 5 year and use them in a facebook group to 'name and shame' as they call it? I am getting watsapp messages from other parents now, who when challenge what they are doing/have done are having personal pictures from their facebook shared! This cannot be right, surely! I understand that people shouldnt park on zig-zags and am all for safety but it was gridlocked traffic and shouldn't be my little boy/me being the poster for it!?

Did OP say she had fled a domestic abuse relationship or that her child was at risk of abduction?

You know perfectly well she didn't.

My post was about you saying being bothered about your child being identified was due to "paranoia".

The OPs mum was stuck in stationary traffic through. Maybe she was heading to the designated parking but due to traffic wouldn't get there in time so she hopped out while her mum was stuck ? I would have done the same in that situation tbh

Every parent that is dropped off or parks illegally outside the school gates has some excuse or other. Don't park outside school gates! It's a bloody nightmare for everyone.

Gridlocked or not why pull over on zigzag lines? Surely your mum would have seen them? Personally think a bit of naming and shaming is a good thing when it causes a nightmare for other parents as people think the can park where they want. Perhaps in the future it will stop you / your mum from doing it again.

So what is the law then Titty? Dumping that comment was extremely unhelpful.

She wasn't parked. Her mother was queueing in traffic and had assumedly organised a rdv point.

It's paranoia- or not liking being named and shamed.
People see your children in the street/at the park/ in the supermarket. Why is a picture of them on Facebook really such a risk. I think people are getting a bit confused and neurotic. Of course there is a risk in a child sending inappropriate photos to someone who then posts of Facebook - or indeed they post inappropriate photos of themselves. There is a risk around them 'making friends' online and sending photos. Is there a risk where there is a mother holding a child in an everyday situation? No, of course not.

Since you asked... I would not be bothered about my image or my child's image being used. (or my child being recognisable). That's a whole level of paranoia I refuse to embrace.

How fortunate for you that you and your child would not be at risk if your images were to become public. This privilege does not extend to some adoptive families, some families fleeing domestic abuse, or the families of people working closely with dangerous criminals to name but a few.

I don't see where the op said her mum had parked on zig zags to drop off.

I read that she was stuck in traffic (standstill traffic gridlock) and hopped out of the car to drop off. That the car was outside school gates is pure coincidence. Surely you'd have done the same if it'd been a bit further down the road?

Parked / pulled over - whatever. How else would OP managed to have got 3 children out of the car safely including a toddler?

Did OP say hers is an adoptive family, fleeing domestic abuse, or the families of people working closely with dangerous criminals.

OP asked how other parents would feel about their child's image being posted (implied in HER circumstances, not in every other type of situation other MNers can think of). I stated my tuppence, adding that I would feel angry at being unfairly labeled part of the traffic hazards. I might be worried about my child being villified (FOR PARKING SINS), too.

Would not surprise me if OP's mum passed parking spaces within 5 minute walk of the school in order to get closer to school where OP got dropped off, though.

"hopping out" is unloading. You are not supposed to unload from a car that is not parked. You are not supposed to unload from a car on zig zag lines and you are not supposed to park on zigzag lines.

She did not park on zig zags but did "unload" passengers. The OP is probably not technically in the wrong, but the driver most certainly is.

Perhaps she did drive past those spaces. Problem is she had no buggy so I expect she felt it would take too long to walk. Besides not everyone can carry their child that far.

If she was in stationery traffic as being suggested and didn't pull over to the side OP wouldn't be on the zigzag lines. She'd be next to them and her photo wouldn't have been taken.

Did OP say hers is an adoptive family, fleeing domestic abuse, or the families of people working closely with dangerous criminals.

She did not. I assume that none of these situations apply to her.

But there is a wider point here, and I am amazed that this isn't common sense to everybody: it isn't acceptable to publish a photograph of someone else's child without permission.

My niece and nephew are adopted. Their birth parents are actively trying to find them and the children would be at risk if they did. The school is aware but this is not common knowledge at the school gate because it's nobody else's business.

A lot of posters are focusing on the parking issue. Fair enough. But surely the photograph is the main issue here?

Titty do enlighten me - where am I wrong? You clearly know your stuff so I'd love to hear how I am wrong? Is it my knowledge of intellectual property law, data protection legislation, or human rights? Or all three?

Are you telling me you have never once uploaded a photo with another child in the background who's parents permission you don't have? Every time you've been to the park or on holiday you've always made sure their are no other people in the background? We all do it, it is not illegal to post pictures of other people's children.
School parking is a nightmare and by using to car you are adding to the problem. Everyone has a reason for why they have to that morning, yours is no more special and unique then anyone else's

I think you need to suck it up. Dropping off (or being dropped off) is not allowed on zig zag lines for safety reasons.

No one just hops out the car with a young child, you need to get out, your 5 year old needs to be unbuckled, bags picked up, check it is safe for you, say quick bye to gran etc all which takes a few extra seconds and the traffic in front could have started moving and then you would have been causing an temporary obstruction and adding to the problem. If all parents then follow your poor example it becomes a serious issue outside the school.

You were wrong, you have been named and shamed, the photo is now down, get over it.

Did OP say hers is an adoptive family, fleeing domestic abuse, or the families of people working closely with dangerous criminals.

Again - no she didn't, as well you know.

But you posted that your reason for not caring if personal details about your child were revealed on the internet wasn't because you have no reason to fear for their safety, but because you refuse to embrace what you describe as "paranoia".

That lack of understanding of other people's situations is what's offensive about your posts.

Titty do enlighten me - where am I wrong? You clearly know your stuff so I'd love to hear how I am wrong? Is it my knowledge of intellectual property law, data protection legislation, or human rights? Or all three?

All three. Shall respind in detail when more awake.

Here are some cases where the courts have held it wrong to publicise certain images or personal data.

1. A man was filmed by police cctv on a public highway armed with a knife. Police spoke to him and found out he was planning to harm himself. The footage was shared on local tv media, then nationally. The parties were held to have acted unlawfully in sharing and broadcasting the footage, not least because the footage showed someone intending to do harm to others, when that was not the case. The individual was distinctive looking and recognisable from the footage to anyone who knew him.
2. A couple married and contracted with a magazine to take photos and publish them. A photographer for another direct rival magazine snuck in and took photos. A court judged against the second magazine. (Michael Douglas's wedding)
3. JK Rowling was photographed shoppping with her young child. Photos of them both were published. The courts held that the images of the child were in breach of the child's right to a private life.

I look forward to your response Titty clearly you are an expert on the subject.

Are you telling me you have never once uploaded a photo with another child in the background who's parents permission you don't have? Every time you've been to the park or on holiday you've always made sure their are no other people in the background?

Well, actually - I do a lot of photography and am probably more aware of this than many having worked with several families for whom the consequences could be catastrophic. I tend to take pictures from an angle with fewer children in the background; I often use quite a shallow depth of field which happens to blur the background (I don't do this for that reason but it's a happy coincidence); I have in the past cropped strangers out of pictures of my children, and I post very few pictures of my children online, and with very high privacy settings. So I can't claim never to have done this, but I am quite mindful of it.

We all do it, it is not illegal to post pictures of other people's children.

I didn't say it was illegal. Some things don't have to be illegal to be inconsiderate or just a bad idea. As a wider point (and I am not a lawyer so forgive my lack of specific knowledge) I don't think the law has caught up with the explosion of social media over the last ten years. I believe that there are some moves to classify social media platforms as publishers, meaning that they would have to take much greater responsibility for the content posted on their sites, just as paper publishers do now.

none of those examples are of social media name and shame facebook pages with posts made by private individuals

I rarely (eg. I think twice ever) upload photos of my DC. In only one of those is another person's DC - and I know they also uploaded photos of their DC and mine at the same event.
It really is a bad idea for all kinds of reasons. A photo with the identities blurred would have been just as effective for their campaign. BUT I hate vigilantes of all kinds.

agreed, it would be better to shade out the childs face
op could help by not being an inconsiderate passenger and not agreeing to get out of car when it is not permitted by law