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!?

they did change the pic quite quickly to shade out his face. op is just embarrassed, but being angry is easier

Painting no they're not direct comparisons I agree but they do demonstrate the principle that just because someone has an image of someone else does not give the photographer absolute freedom to do whatever they like with that image.

yes but (really no expert) the rules for professional photos published in established media eg the daily mail are completely different to those posted by private individuals on social media. it isnt the same at all

I'm looking forward to Titty's response too rubs hands . It would be better to respond with facts when awake in the first place rather than with snark.

The problem here is that the child is fully identifiable in an inflammatory post, yet has done nothing wrong.

To PPs re.uploading pictures of other people's kids. I have never knowingly uploaded photos with other people's kids in the background or identifiable elsewhere. Not everyone does this. A child mistakenly pictured in the background is unfortunate but nowhere near as bad as deliberately implying that they belong to a family of rule breakers.

Freelance photographer here

You can, and people do, take photographs of anyone in a public place and share them - there's no law about this. It is not a breach of data protection because you were in a public place. The general rule of thumb is if anyone is identifiable from those photographs and you are using them to enhance yourself (mainly through business promotion) you ask them to sign a model release form. However, for general street photography, or urban scenes, it is generally acceptable to upload photographs without having model release forms, even if people are identifiable.

There is also a moral side to this though - you don't upload photographs to "vigilante" groups - although I feel the group you describe is not actually a vigilante group. It's caused some embarrassment but is probably a closed group and only accessed by parents of that school - ie. parents who could have seen your child at drop off, and parents who already knew his name, and the name of his school. Therefore, as long as it is a closed group, no data protection laws, or rights for a child to have privacy, have been actually been broken. Saying that, steps should always be taken to ensure no embarrassment is caused.

Your mum was in the wrong by stopping on the zig zags. You seem to understand that; at this point I would be more concerned about that then the photograph. Whatever your reasons, stopping dangerously near a school is incredibly unsafe - I can totally see why parents are riled. When tension run high, it's easy to not fully think through one's actions.

Perhaps you need to spearhead a campaign by the school to look into safer drop off and pick up routines? This would turn a negative action you've been involved in, into a positive, lasting, effect. To me that would be the best way forwards.

I wouldn't get into tit-for-tat with other parents. I am not sure why the police were called, unless you were actually threatened, this isn't really a police matter (apart from your mother stopping on the zig zags).

For those mentioning photographing vulnerable people - do you want me to respond? It's quite complex, but I am happy to type it out. In short you stick to the above guidelines unless you are made aware that a person is vulnerable (adult or child). It is the responsibility of the photographer / organisation to develop a vulnerable child and adult safeguarding protocol - it's not something that there is specific laws for. Happy to share some pointers though, and some of the things I have been told to think about in regards to this if anyone is interested.

Painting journalists can in part rely on the journalistic exemption under the DPA - it is arguable that this social media page could use the same exemption, and even if it did, the principles in those cases, and the fact there are other laws to protect images being shared in certain circumstances Means that this photographer probably would have a weak defence.
On the other side of the coin, there is an exemption to the DPA when processing data for "domestic purposes". A lot of images that go on social media are likely to fall under that exemption, but a name and shame site is unlikely to.

What a bunch of pathetic saddos. Taking close up shots of inncocdnt children and bitching about them on Facebook will do fuck all to address the parking issue.

We have two schools locally with similar issues. In both schools the caretakers stand on duty and photo the reg and position of the cars adaquately and email them to the local constabulary. That tends to work.

ChasedbyBees I suspect that what Titty was attempting to convey was her dismay that the law is as it is, and apparently the best way to do that is to blame the messenger. However, if I am wrong then I do look forward to Tit putting me right, hopefully in a more eloquent manner than shouting "bollocks" and "arse".

It is a date protection issue.

Or even data protection

I'm failing to see the point of the thread - you are upset about your face being put on social media when you let your child out of the car on zig zags?

I have a real issue with taking pictures of someone else's child and putting them on a public forum, regardless of the context. If that had been my son, as with so many children who are or who have been in care, it could have put him in serious danger - especially if the child was pictured in an identifiable location.

It really isn't.

But why Tit why? Please explain.

IAmNotAUserNumber Curious to think why you think it is a data protection issue?

From the ICO's mouth.

ico.org.uk/for-the-public/schools/photos/

Your face/image in a public place is not usually considered data under the DPA.

IAmNotAUserNumber Have you read my post above? The reason I don't see this as a data protection issue is because that information regarding the child was accessible to those people in the Facebook group already (the Facebook group is not public).

That doesn't make me think that what has happened was right to have happened; I would have dealt with this in a totally different way, but it is not a data protection issue in my eyes.

i think you are less bothered about your kids face being on the internet and more bothered at being named and shamed, even though what you were doing is name and shame-y.

if your mum had parked a few mins away, you could've got out and walked, she chose to drive into the gridlock therefore adding to it.

OP Did you report the photo to Facebook themselves? Someone at dd's primary school once posted a photo of dd without my permission (she was about 8 at the time) and I reported it to FB. As she was under 13 and the photo had been posted without my permission, they removed it very quickly.

Tit that ICO extract does not support the fact that the OPs example is DPA compliant.
It is a DP issue because:-

1. The child's' image is personal data (as defined by the DPA)
2. The photographer has "processed" (again, as defined by the DPA) that personal data
3. Any such processing must comply with the principles of the DPA. In my view, this processing doesn't.
4. Further, it is unlikely that the exemptions to the DPA apply.
5. Therefore, this is a DPA issue AND a breach of DPA.
6. Add to that potential defamation and breach of the Human Rights Act.
7. I am not commenting on the OP's actions by the way ( I know little about traffic law and don't pretend to); nor do I know anything about safeguarding - but the DP side I am clear on.

But Tit I shall be sure to add your ringing endorsement next time I update my CV

I don't know about the legal side, but I do know that if you report the photo to Facebook, then they will remove it quickly. This is the case for any photo of a child under the age of 13 that you have parental responsibility for.

Legally, I doubt the photographer has done anything wrong although his attitude when it was pointed out that he'd included a child's image is worrying.
Basically, schools have policies on internet publication of photographs for very sound safeguarding reasons. There's a lot of information on the NSPCC website. If you speak to the school, I'd ask them to speak directly to this group of parents and remind them of why these policies exist to avoid it happening in future. You can't justify getting out of the car on the zigzag lines, so don't get sidetracked by that - except to apologise, if it's brought up.

Coral there was a DP case where a member of a church group circulated a newsletter to all its members and included contact information for all of them. That was held to be a DP breach because none of the conditions that allowed processing applied; and the court rejected the processor's claim that she was doing it under the domestic purposes exemption. The fact that this was a closed church group was irrelevant. I think similar considerations would apply here.