ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Photo-preening is wrong and illegal

You can't say that I haven't repeatedly warned you about the negative consequences of photo-preening online at your children's expense:
An Italian woman has been banned from posting images of her teenage son on social media, and threatened with a 10,000 euro fine if she defies it.

The 16-year-old had made a court complaint about his mother's social media habits, which included posting pictures of him on Facebook without his consent.

A Rome family court dealing with the mother's divorce from the teen's father, ruled in the 16-year-old's favour. The court ruled that as per Italian copyright law, the subject of the photographs owns the copyright and the mother was therefore in breach.
It's natural to be proud of your children. But they do not exist to serve your ego, and as a parent, you should be far more concerned about protecting their privacy and their futures than in trying to demonstrate to everyone what a wonderful father or mother you are, or how fabulous your genetic legacy happens to be, or showing the distant relatives they barely know what they look like. That's what Christmas cards are for.

Posting your children's pictures online without their consent is obnoxious, self-serving, and potentially dangerous. It is also illegal in an increasing number of jurisdictions. Just don't do it.

Labels: ,

100 Comments:

Blogger Anno Ruse January 11, 2018 10:37 AM  

Just get a cat like the lesbians.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 11, 2018 10:38 AM  

Unless it's a short video of your child hitting a man in the balls.

Everyone loves that.

Drink more Brawndo.

Anonymous John Pedosta January 11, 2018 10:50 AM  

Make sure you leave the metadata on pictures so people can look up the GPS coordinates of where they are taken.

Anonymous Bukulu January 11, 2018 10:59 AM  

This classic essay is relevant here

Anonymous Looking Glass January 11, 2018 11:04 AM  

@3 John Pedosta

Okay, I laughed pretty hard at the name.

As to the topic, we probably hit peak Social Media around 2013, it seems like. There's going to be a lot of enforced privacy rules going forward, which isn't a bad thing. Though I imagine it's going to cause a lot of squawking from the attention whores going forward.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 11:06 AM  

Vox... you're delusional about this.

We live in a world where every 10 year old has a smartphone. Privacy is an outdated concept.

Gen Zyklon may completely reject the whole social media storm... but it certainly doesn't appear that they are. I practically have to take up all the phones during the youth group meetings just to keep them from facebook living the whole thing.

cameras are every where. If your kids are involved in any kind of activity at all... there are pictures and videos of them all over the internet... because the parents of their friends... their coaches... their teachers... all of those people.. can and do put it out there.

The best thing you can do is never... never... never complain about your children online. Never post negative stories about them (not even the ones you think are cute and funny).


Anonymous John January 11, 2018 11:07 AM  

I might not regularly agree with your opinions, but on this one I whole heartedly agree. So many kids post "seemingly" innocent photos of their kids, which in reality can be used by sick people.

Anonymous Weak January 11, 2018 11:15 AM  

Winston Webb and John Podesta, you guys win the internet today. Tremendous.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 11:22 AM  

example... we have this neighbor with an absolutely awesome daughter. She's 12 or so. Great kid. Does great in school... just a good kid. But the mom puts up facebook videos of her crying. 12 year old girl behaving like a perfectly normal 12 year old girl... crying over being corrected over how the laundry was done or whatever.

Putting that video on facebook is child abuse.


Anonymous Sunderr January 11, 2018 11:24 AM  

Well deserved, years ago my mom posted a picture of me on her fb without my consent. I never even allowed her to take a picture of me again, lose my trust once you lose it forever, at least she listened.

Blogger WATYF January 11, 2018 11:25 AM  

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Nate on this one. This is pretty overblown. Who cares why anyone else posts pictures of anything (kids or otherwise). I don't have to share their motives. As for "potential danger", I've love to see some data on this. How is it any more dangerous than taking them to the grocery store?

WATYF

Anonymous The Original Arrogant Steelers Fan January 11, 2018 11:26 AM  

@6 "We live in a world where every 10 year old has a smartphone. Privacy is an outdated concept."

I can't totally agree.

1.) 10 year olds should not have smartphones. Make it illegal for any kid below the age of 16 to own or use a smartphone. I'm sure the helicopter parents will whine the loudest. The helicopter parents can stick it.

2.) A user can be just as in-tuned to what they are posting on Facebook/social media as any other digital activity. The real issues is enforcement. But there's no question that the more egregious cases could be prosecuted.

3.) As noted above, at least it potentially would eliminate the blatant stuff (outside of security cameras and the like)... such as a welfare bum mother showing their smiling, naked babies in kitchen sinks.

Blogger Bucephalus January 11, 2018 11:28 AM  

Maybe the mother posts pics because secretly she wants the kid to start doing curls, or some other bicep related exercise.

Anonymous BTC January 11, 2018 11:36 AM  

Your kids privacy isnt yours to take away. Thank God the internet wasnt a thing when I was growing up.

Blogger Eric Mueller January 11, 2018 11:36 AM  

I cringe when I see people posting pictures of their children. Most probably aren't even knowledgeable enough to set up lists, so those pictures are public. On the rare occasion when I post a picture with my children in it, that picture only goes to a tightly controlled list of my closest and most trusted friends.

Blogger Ransom Smith January 11, 2018 11:46 AM  

Oh, and here's a wild thought,
We as a society just take no pictures.
Of anyone.
At all.

Blogger VD January 11, 2018 11:49 AM  

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Nate on this one. This is pretty overblown. Who cares why anyone else posts pictures of anything (kids or otherwise). I don't have to share their motives.

The law is pretty straightforward. The kid owns his likeness, not you, and will have a case against you when he is an adult if he so chooses.

Anonymous Reenay January 11, 2018 11:49 AM  

Even worse than mere photo-preening is the dreaded bathtub photo. Yes, I have retarded "friends" that do this. Cringy as hell, especially in this day and age.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 11, 2018 11:50 AM  

Whatever happened to making your friends and neighbors sit through hours of blurry slides?

"Here's Janet and Bobby standing by the grand canyon. Bobby isn't smiling because he drank too much mountain dew and puked a few miles back."

Blogger Anno Ruse January 11, 2018 11:51 AM  

"such as a welfare bum mother showing their smiling, naked babies in kitchen sinks."

I once saw a screencapped Facebook comment chain about how Mom's boyfriend (guess the race) might have a hard time not molesting little Suzy because she walks around in her underwear. These subhumans found it humorous. Work camps and forced sterilization are the gentlest solutions to these problems.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare January 11, 2018 11:54 AM  

That's...that's seriously screwed up. Did the mother take down the video? That poor kid...

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare January 11, 2018 11:54 AM  

That's...that's seriously screwed up. Did the mother take down the video? That poor kid...

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare January 11, 2018 11:55 AM  

That's...that's seriously screwed up. Did the mother take down the video? That poor kid...

Anonymous BBGKB January 11, 2018 12:02 PM  

How is it any more dangerous than taking them to the grocery store?

You wouldn't tell guys that look like the one in the red shirt your child's name or where they live, would you?
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/dressing-part-2001-12-26

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:06 PM  

"The kid owns his likeness, not you, and will have a case against you when he is an adult if he so chooses."

The kid doesn't own anything.

He's a kid.

Blogger SQT January 11, 2018 12:07 PM  

My sister lost custody of her daughter last year and a big part of it was because she was posting pictures online of my niece and the kid thought it was an invasion of her privacy.

For those saying it's not realistic to keep your kids off the internet- I say you're wrong. My kids are 14 and 17 and you're not going to find images of them anywhere. The schools are require the parents to sign a release so they can use the child's image online- I declined.

Everyone in my family knows not to put pictures of my kids online. My kids have thanked me repeatedly for guarding their privacy too.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:08 PM  

This is nothing more than one more way for Governments to erode parental rights and insert themselves as the ultimate real parent of the children.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:09 PM  

"That's...that's seriously screwed up. Did the mother take down the video? That poor kid... "

no. not only has she not taken it down... she cannot fathom why anyone would think it was bad.

Blogger Jed Mask January 11, 2018 12:11 PM  

Actually Mr. Vox, although I agree with you I totally understand where Mr. Nate is coming from on the *REALITY* of this issue.

It's not about what we "think" should be right but *WHAT IS* happening in the reality.

Here's the thing...

"The law is pretty straightforward. The kid owns his likeness, not you, and will have a case against you when he is an adult if he so chooses."

Thing is, that "kid" was still by an underage teenager of 16 years-old. He's not even 18 yet.

Now, I truly believe it was "morally wrong" for his mother to post pictures of him only without his consent but the son went even further wrong to take his own mother to court over this. He should have just "let it go" having made his case to his mother that he doesn't like her posting personal photos of him without his reasonable consent and if his mom refused just "distanced himself" further away from her as any normal teen coming of age creates "distance" from their parents.

If this was a Christian family living by the Word, if the son knew better he wouldn't drag his mom into the *HEATHEN COURT SYSTEM* for the privacy of his family's integrity and to make a reproach on Christ. He would just have to "take his stripe" and forgive her and move on with his life "turning the other cheek" and not let "unbelievers" come in and do judgment and cause further strife in his family.

If I was him, least where I'm at now, I wouldn't do like he did (I hope)... Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:11 PM  

"My kids are 14 and 17 and you're not going to find images of them anywhere. "

do they have phones?

Blogger Giraffe January 11, 2018 12:12 PM  

Isn't the owner of a video or picture the photographer?

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 11, 2018 12:12 PM  

The only place you could find pictures of my kids growing up was the local paper playing sports or for activities. Those are so grainy that if you didn't know it was my kid dunking the ball you'd never know who it was.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:14 PM  

allowing children to sue their parents is just one more way the Government is actively destroying the family and replacing it.

Notice.. a child can sue a parent for actions that the parent takes while doing the job of parenting. But in plenty of states a citizen cannot sue a state employee for what that employee does while on the job.

you draw your own conclusions from that.

Blogger Jed Mask January 11, 2018 12:15 PM  

@25

"The kid doesn't own anything.

He's a kid."

*PREACH IT* brother. That's right. He's not a legal adult of 18 years-old.

He doesn't have those rights until he's grown of age out of parents' house.

Parenting done God's Way is NOT "democracy" it's *DICTATORSHIP* Mr. Vox. Amen!

~ Bro. Jed

Blogger Jed Mask January 11, 2018 12:17 PM  

"allowing children to sue their parents is just one more way the Government is actively destroying the family and replacing it.

Notice.. a child can sue a parent for actions that the parent takes while doing the job of parenting. But in plenty of states a citizen cannot sue a state employee for what that employee does while on the job.

you draw your own conclusions from that."
_______________

Mr. Vox, Mr. Nate is right on this one I must say. Amen.

~ Bro. Jed

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 11, 2018 12:18 PM  

@30 Nate, that is one of my pet peeves. Giving a phone to a kid. I lived without a cellphone my entire childhood. It's not a deprivation to not have a phone. I got my kids phones when they started driving long distances. We lived in a very rural area with no pay phones for long miles at a stretch. Those phones could call our make limited texts and were to be used if there was a tree down or the road washed out or the car stopped.

Don't give young kids phones.

Blogger Salt January 11, 2018 12:22 PM  

Giraffe wrote:Isn't the owner of a video or picture the photographer?

Not in every jurisdiction. Here in the US one often must get a release for use by the subject.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:22 PM  

meh. my kids all have phones. Because that is the world we live in. My strategy has always been to teach my kids to deal with the world rather than to isolate them and risk exposure later.

Vaccination if you will.

So far its working... the oldest is entirely appalled by the idea of social media and will not participate in it even when encouraged. he thinks facebook is retarded and mocks things like snapchat.

We'll see how it goes with the others. What I notice so far is that parents that keep their kids away from this stuff end up with kids that want it a lot more than kids that were surrounded by it all the time.

my kids would rather go outside and go shooting than play on a cellphone.

And they've all had phones and tablets and xboxs since they were like 5.

Blogger VD January 11, 2018 12:24 PM  

The kid doesn't own anything.

He's a kid.


Of course he does. That reflects ignorance of the entire history of common law. The fact that one has not yet reached a majority and is not permitted to make decisions concerning the property does not mean that one is not the rightful owner of the property.

The common law is not abrogated because we now have technology that permits the instant global distribution of images.

Blogger VD January 11, 2018 12:26 PM  

What I notice so far is that parents that keep their kids away from this stuff end up with kids that want it a lot more than kids that were surrounded by it all the time.

The Catholic Schoolgirl argument has always been a fallacious one based on a myth. There is a reason why kids whose parents let them eat whatever they want are fatter than kids whose parents don't.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:27 PM  

"The fact that one has not yet reached a majority and is not permitted to make decisions concerning the property does not mean that one is not the rightful owner of the property."

and if one is not permitted to make decisions concerning that property... who IS the person who has the authority to make those decisions?

The parent.

if you want to define this as child abuse... we can talk about that. But don't give me this property rights crap.

Anonymous Anonymous January 11, 2018 12:27 PM  

My kids have no presence online other than gaming accounts.
They also didn't have phones until they were in high school.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:29 PM  

I mean for crying out loud Vox look at the pandora's box you're opening up over pictures on the internet. What other bad decisions parents make should result in civil lawsuits?

Perhaps your child should sue you because you didn't send him to the school he would have chosen for himself? Perhaps you moved to much? Perhaps you did not provide well enough for him?

When a child cannot make a decision for himself the power then goes to the parent to make that decision. Period. outside of specifically defined abuse... that decision is final and beyond reproach.

Blogger Jon Mollison January 11, 2018 12:30 PM  

That long distance relative excuse is weak sauce. There ain't no reason you can't privately text or email pictures to your loved ones rather than blast them out to anyone with a dialup and a desktop.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:30 PM  

"They also didn't have phones until they were in high school."

their friends did.

Anonymous Michael S January 11, 2018 12:33 PM  

To the people screeching in this thread who can't seem to read: this happened in ITALY, the case is covered by ITALIAN law, which is not the same as American law.

I don't know how I feel about minors suing their parents, but parents shouldn't do this kind of thing, and if the mother won't be reasonable, perhaps going to law is the only way to solve it. A 16-year-old has a certain level of self-awareness and has a right to opt-out of his mother's obsessions.

Speaking of parents violating their children, I wonder if male genital mutilation will ever be banned. (I recently had a young relative fall victim to a botched attempt.)

Anonymous Eduardo January 11, 2018 12:38 PM  

@46

Shitty politics is shitty everywhere mate.

Blogger Salt January 11, 2018 12:39 PM  

VD wrote:The Catholic Schoolgirl argument has always been a fallacious one based on a myth. There is a reason why kids whose parents let them eat whatever they want are fatter than kids whose parents don't.

It's not a binary either or. When I traveled in Germany and Austria I noticed that people there of my age were less inclined to drink alcohol for the purpose of getting trashed than my contemporaries in America who'd routinely do so simply because consuming adult beverage at age 19 was taboo. They had grown up having that glass of wine or beer.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:42 PM  

"The Catholic Schoolgirl argument has always been a fallacious one based on a myth. There is a reason why kids whose parents let them eat whatever they want are fatter than kids whose parents don't."

and yet we have cookie jars full of cookies all over the house.... and boxes of candy left over from halloweens gone buy uneaten. Because the kids don't care.

As opposed to our daughter's best friend who's mom is a restrictive health nut... and every time the girl comes over she is grabbing all the candy she can and sneaking off to gorge on it.


Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 12:43 PM  

" They had grown up having that glass of wine or beer. "

same experience in large catholic families here. My uncles all gave their kids beer and wine. None of them became alcoholics. The only alcoholics in the family are on the teetotaler baptist side.

Anonymous Anonymous January 11, 2018 12:49 PM  

Saw the same thing In Mexico years ago, the drinking age there was "can you reach the bar?". Never saw any drunk teenagers.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 11, 2018 12:51 PM  

Nate wrote:"My kids are 14 and 17 and you're not going to find images of them anywhere. "

do they have phones?


Do their friends have phones?

Blogger pyrrhus January 11, 2018 12:59 PM  

@51 We have dined out many times in France, where kids have been getting little bits of wine since they were toddlers and there is effectively no age restriction on alcohol. I have never seen a drunken person, or even an over indulger, there.Most have one or two drinks of beer or wine, and that's it. Pretty much the same in Italy, though we haven't spent as much time there. Kids in the US abuse substances as a form of rebellion, while in France there is nothing to rebel against.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 11, 2018 1:04 PM  

"6. Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 11:06 AM
...
Privacy is an outdated concept.
..."



You will not live down that line.

It's right up there with "Armed self defense is an outdated concept."

and "Free speech is an outdated concept."

or how about "Private property is an outdated concept."

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 1:05 PM  

***chuckle***

and people claim this place is an echo chamber.

Blogger bobby January 11, 2018 1:07 PM  

None of this involves ownership of pictures or likenesses.

It has to do with rights of privacy, which all people - adults and kids - possess.

We generally require that an adult act on behalf of a minor when it comes to legal action enforcing these rights, but when a minor's right to privacy has been violated - even by a parent - the minor has a legal cause of action to redress that violation.

The statute of limitations doesn't normally even begin to run on such an action until the minor turns adult, so kids can and do sue their parents when their rights have been infringed by the parents.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 1:07 PM  

"You will not live down that line. "

its outdated because at least 2 generations have abandoned it voluntarily. i wish they hadn't. I wish it were not the case. but it observably is. And yes.. if they decide to abandon private property and or free speech that will be outdated as well. I would argue Free Speech is well on the way to being out-dated if it isn't already.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 1:09 PM  

"It has to do with rights of privacy, which all people - adults and kids - possess. "

kids don't have privacy rights. That is a BS lie made up by governments to give them an excuse to take your kids away from you.

Blogger Salt January 11, 2018 1:11 PM  

To be fair to what Vox is arguing about, it's perhaps one thing to post a family pic or a good shot of one's child. It's wholly another to post a pic of one's 6yo picking his nose, having a cute case of diarrhea, or (forbid) a young daughter in a bikini for pedos to drool over. In the Italian case at hand, ignoring the copyright issue which was necessarily used to stop the mother's behavior, the complainant was old enough to expressly give voice to his desire not to participate in his mother's behavior. I'd guess that had she stopped when he first objected this would never have been acted upon.

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 11, 2018 1:13 PM  

having a cute case of diarrhea,

Best typo in this thread.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 11, 2018 1:14 PM  

Salt wrote:Not in every jurisdiction. Here in the US one often must get a release for use by the subject.

It it can be seen in public, it is fair game to be photographed according to the First Amendment.

If you or your child can be seen from a public space, you can be photographed. There is not much that can be done legally unless the picture is voyeuristic (upskirt photos).
IF the photographer is on private property the property owner can ask them to stop or leave subject to trespassing laws.

There are some exceptions, but most of the country is fair game for photographers.

Anonymous SumDood January 11, 2018 1:16 PM  

A release is needed for commercial use. For personal or artistic or journalistic use there is no requirement to obtain a release.

Blogger Anno Ruse January 11, 2018 1:20 PM  

"and yet we have cookie jars full of cookies all over the house.... and boxes of candy left over from halloweens gone buy uneaten."

My kids are the same way. They almost never touch my drug stash. They know that heroin is a sometimes drug!

Blogger SemiSpook37 January 11, 2018 1:23 PM  

Well, this is awkward. At least in a sort of roundabout way for me, I suppose.

I’ve got a relative that runs a DJ business. Basically built it from nothing. Of course, during the early years, you meet folks and create partnerships based on mutual interests and customer bases. Naturally, as a DJ, your main area of interest is event planning (proms, weddings, etc.), and at some of these events you may need the services of a photographer.

This is where I have the issue.

The relative has a number of children, and they’re great to be around. They, unfortunately, happen to be the subjects of most of the relative’s photography partner’s promotional material. I’m not talking a random candid shot here or there; I mean full-on spreads they’ve posted on their social media to include watermarks. This includes shots from the moments after the youngest was born.

To me, this is a little disturbing.

I get that you need children to create promotional media, and normally, I wouldn’t have an issue with this, but I called this relative out on the behavior, basically saying that they’re whoring out their own children because their associate can’t seem to find their own promotional talent. Granted, I was castigated by the relative and summarily ignored by them for doing so, but I still feel that these children shouldn’t be relied on as talent if they’re not fully consenting to the role, parents’ wishes or indifference be damned.

I don’t think I’m overreacting to this that much, am I? I’d hate to see what happens if and when one of the children actually speaks up on this...

Blogger tuberman January 11, 2018 1:27 PM  

No matter how other aspects of this are viewed on this, living vicariously through your children, through the children you teach, or mentor should be kept to a minimum.

Strangely, I see this vicarious living through kids today, as being worse for mothers than the dads.

Kids should always be reminded that hard work does not stop, there are always deeper levels to complex patterns, and MOST IMPORTANT, failure will happen, and is necessary. Anti-Fragile training starts at an early age. (Physical training will easily lead to a certain amount of anti-fragile awareness)

Blogger SQT January 11, 2018 1:28 PM  

My daughter has a phone because she drives. My son will get one in high school.

I'm sure people think I'm naive but I'm a SAHM and my kids are watched more than most. They don't have social media and know we don't allow them or their friends to post their images online. I have not seen any indication that this rule has been broken.

I know that, as they get older, things will change. But I have protected them while they were too young to understand the consequences of posting your life online. They have seen friends bullied and overexposed and are happy to stay away from that.

I just think it's better not to assume that kids are going to want to put themselves online and give them a license to so with the excuse that "everyone does it." How do I teach them about boundaries if I don't set any for them to live up to?

Anonymous Nibiru January 11, 2018 1:36 PM  

The article has a pic of the kid. If DaillyMail doesn`t have his permission I`ll say say he`ll been a rich 16 yo soon.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT January 11, 2018 1:39 PM  

The law is pretty straightforward. The kid owns his likeness, not you, and will have a case against you when he is an adult if he so chooses.

Maybe in Italy, but not in the United States.

NOTE: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Vox in this post. I'm not stating what is wise or moral for a parent. I'm simply describing the law as it stands in the U.S.

In the U.S. the photographer owns the copyright to any photographic work he makes unless he signs away said ownership. Even paying him does not change ownership unless and until he signs a contract stating as much.

A photographer may take a photograph of any person so long as said person does not have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Basically if you're in public you're fair game, with some caveats because there are situations where you can be in public yet have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As far as a private residence, your expectation of privacy is not total when it comes to the people who live with you.

Note that there's no age restriction on this. A photographer may photograph a child in public, and if the parent or guardian reacts badly it only goes against them. I've read more than one case where a parent got defensive and either tried to steal the camera or attack the photographer, only to wind up with charges for theft and/or battery.

The big caveat of course is that it is a crime to photograph a minor in a manner which is sexual or sexually suggestive, or could be construed as such by a reasonable person. There are some famous "artists" who skirt the gray areas here and get away with it, but the common man will not.

A photographer in the U.S. cannot use an image of another person in a manner that suggests commercial endorsement without their written consent. However, a photographer may, without permission from anyone in an image, not only share an otherwise legal image, but also sell it as a newsworthy or artistic piece and do so at great profit. The people in the photograph have no say in the matter and are not entitled to any compensation.

A private property owner may restrict photography on his property, and may also photograph anyone on his property within the constraints given above. However, the private property owner's only recourse if you are photographing and they forbid it is to ask you to leave. If you don't, you can be charged with trespassing. But the owner may not touch you or your camera, nor demand you give them film or memory cards, or erase anything before you leave. Touching your property is theft and touching you is battery. If the private property is a public space (i.e. a mall), or normally private space being used in a public manner, then the owner has no real recourse should the photographer share, publish, or even profit from said work.

Finally: photography may be arbitrarily limited in regard to military installations and nuclear power plants. Even photography from a position on public land. This does NOT extend to all government buildings. For most of them if you're taking the photograph from public land it's legal.

Note that this is controlled at the Federal level as photography and videography are considered First Amendment expressions of free speech.

All of that said...

As someone mentioned above, there is the possibility a family court could take action on a complaint from a child about too much photography, or photography which is somehow harmful to the child's well being. Especially if it's intentional. That's also an opening for a future lawsuit. But the situation would have to be excessive by the standards of your typical Facebook posting parent.

Photographers enjoy broad rights in the U.S. thanks to the First Amendment. I'm not sure if they are matched any where else in the world.

Blogger Salt January 11, 2018 1:43 PM  

Nibiru wrote:The article has a pic of the kid. If DaillyMail doesn`t have his permission I`ll say say he`ll been a rich 16 yo soon.

No, it's a stock photo of a teenager.

Interesting comment, clarifies Italian law by an attorney -


dario, Italy, 13 minutes ago

The article misqoutes Italian copyright law. The subject is not owner of the photos, but he owns his image, therefore, strictly speaking, any picture of a person, can be published only with the subject's consent. However, this is hardly ever enforced and is only respected if there is an abuse of the image (e.g., a photoshopped image which makes the sbuject seem ridiculous etc.). Also, famous people cannot object because their fame makes the image "of public interest". In the case of a minor, both parents have joint genitorial rights over the child and any one parent can impede the other of publishing pics of the child. It may seem confusing but as a lawyer here I see it's need.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5258287/Mum-face-10k-fine-stop-posting-pics-son-Facebook.html#ixzz53u2X8ab0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Anonymous One Deplorable DT January 11, 2018 1:48 PM  

@64 SemiSpook37 January 11, 2018 1:23 PM - if you're in the U.S. your relative is crossing one of the few lines photographers have. He cannot use images of his children for commercial advertising and endorsement without their written consent. And since he is the parent his children might have to have their own legal representation, or some form of separate legal guardian in this matter, in order to consent.

His own children have grounds for a lawsuit against him should they ever choose to do so.

Blogger Billy January 11, 2018 1:49 PM  

This- to everything that was written

Anonymous E Deploribus Unum January 11, 2018 2:19 PM  

How is it any more dangerous than taking them to the grocery store?

Duh. Because 15-50 people will see them at the grocery store, most of them normal adults there to buy groceries and entirely uninterested in your kid. Digital posting is forever, and kid pictures are a magnet for pervs. You can bet if your naked baby in the sink interests the kiddie porn crowd, it will circulate places and be used for purposes you couldn't and don't want to imagine.

There's no question you cannot keep your children entirely safe from online self-exposure or from being seen out in public, but you can certainly avoid making the situation worse. They are two different problems.

Anonymous Farinata January 11, 2018 2:27 PM  

I'm with Nate, here. Ordinary common-law standards clearly don't apply to minor children in all sorts of ways - I can force my three year-old to take a nap, deprive her of sweets, confine her to my house against her will when she really wants to go to the park... Moreover, she has virtually none of the responsibilities of an adult, which makes the idea that she has adult-level privacy rights pretty suspect.

Anonymous Stan Adams January 11, 2018 2:30 PM  

Northern Europeans drink a hell of a lot more than Southern Europeans. Brits drink more than Yanks.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 11, 2018 2:39 PM  

" 57. Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 1:07 PM
"You will not live down that line. "

its outdated because at least 2 generations have abandoned it voluntarily. i wish they hadn't. I wish it were not the case. but it observably is.
..."



They will rue the day. I do not think they know what they are giving up nor do they understand whay they think they are gaining by opting into social media.

Just because the uses our private information is being put are hidden or seemingly benign do not excuse those uses nor does it preclude future misuse.

And people think MMO's are digital crack. hmph,

Harrumph I say!

Blogger Joel Pastor January 11, 2018 2:44 PM  

oh, and isn't common-law practice also pretty permissive with regard to spanking? How could a child retain full privacy rights without retaining the right to bodily integrity? "Touch but don't look"?

Anonymous Sidehill Dodger January 11, 2018 2:49 PM  

VD wrote:
The law is pretty straightforward. The kid owns his likeness, not you, and will have a case against you when he is an adult if he so chooses.

You mean Italian law, right Vox? Or is your assertion based on actual research into US copyright law, in addition to the Italian case you cited?

Blogger SemiSpook37 January 11, 2018 2:57 PM  

@71

That’s what I was afraid of. The fact that this relative doesn’t have any sort of legal representation (or at least not that I know of) is especially troubling.

I hate it when I’m right...

Anonymous Michael S January 11, 2018 3:18 PM  

kids don't have privacy rights. That is a BS lie made up by governments to give them an excuse to take your kids away from you.

I wouldn't strictly call a 16-year-old a "kid."

If a person has the right to freedom of association, then he has the right not to associate himself with his mother's behavior after trying to change it.

The copyright law is just a convenient way to stop the unwanted behavior.

Anonymous Michael S January 11, 2018 3:39 PM  

@68 Great post on the U.S. situation, all true.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 3:43 PM  

its folly to be complaining about pictures when the bigger problem is video shaming.

Anonymous WaterBoy January 11, 2018 4:03 PM  

One Deplorable DT @68: "For most of them if you're taking the photograph from public land it's legal."

One particular public place to be aware of is at the airport. According to the TSA, it isn't prohibited on the Federal level to take photographs at screening locations (although they do ask that you not photograph their monitors). But it IS prohibited in certain areas of particular airports, such as Boston Logan International Airport:

"According to a statement from Massachusetts Port Authority spokesperson Jennifer Mehigan to Newsweek, “There is no law or policy that prohibits filming inside Logan Airport except in secure areas and of all security procedures.”" (emphasis mine)

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 11, 2018 4:03 PM  

Video shaming?

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 4:28 PM  

YouTube. Parents put up videos of them punishing their kids. Also put up videos of their kids throwing fits

Blogger SQT January 11, 2018 4:37 PM  

I wouldn't be surprised to see more cases like this hit the American legal system and change the laws in this country. I have seen cases where kids as young as 14 have filed for emancipation from their parents- and succeeded. So I don't think it's farfetched to think the courts might recognize, at some point, that kids can legitimately object to being used by mommy to get attention on her Instagram account.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 4:38 PM  

all the more reason to start beefing up parental rights laws ASAP. rather than undermining parents the way Vox is here.

Anonymous No Comment January 11, 2018 4:43 PM  

Nate wrote:...cameras are every where. If your kids are involved in any kind of activity at all... there are pictures and videos of them all over the internet... because the parents of their friends... their coaches... their teachers... all of those people.. can and do put it out there.

The best thing you can do is never... never... never complain about your children online. Never post negative stories about them (not even the ones you think are cute and funny).

You might not be able to control other people's posting habits but you sure can (or should be able to) control your own.

Nate wrote:
...and yet we have cookie jars full of cookies all over the house.... and boxes of candy left over from halloweens gone buy uneaten. Because the kids don't care.

Then why do you still buy the stuff? That just sounds like a waste of money.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 4:45 PM  

also... remember folks.. America's Funniest Home Videos is totally evil and against the privacy rights of children.

Blogger Duke Norfolk January 11, 2018 4:51 PM  

Nate wrote:Parents put up videos of them punishing their kids. Also put up videos of their kids throwing fits

Yep, that's some highly despicable behavior by anybody, but by parents? Holy crap. I've made this comment before. I'd like to reach straight thru and throttle those f'ing people.

Using your children's emotional and/or physical pain for others' entertainment is pathetic.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 5:02 PM  

Agree completely Duke. the constructive thing here would be to strengthen parental rights, while at the same time, defining many of these behaviors as child abuse.

Blogger Nate January 11, 2018 5:06 PM  

"Then why do you still buy the stuff? That just sounds like a waste of money. "

because ever once in a while ya may want a cookie. or a small little bite sized twix bar.

also... are you a one percenter? Because I am. in fact more than a one percenter. I'm more like a .5 percenter. so... wasting money on cookies is not a concern. There is good chance my electric bill is more than your house payment.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 11, 2018 5:35 PM  

I believe discipline should be a private thing. YouTube is just self aggrandizement especially if it involves humiliating your kids.

It's better to save until they're married and you can show pics to their spouses and tell the funny story.

Blogger TransplantedTexan January 11, 2018 7:02 PM  

A 16 yo doesn't have a right to complete and unfettered freedom of association either.
At least not in my house. If I feel association with a particular individual is harmful enough I will limit that as I see fit. Because it's part of my job.

Blogger LP9 January 11, 2018 7:27 PM  

Mom and dad used to troll facebook to check up on their enemies, if anything mis-dysinfo is posted about us but that was years ago at social media this would be prior to the events during and after 2012/2011. They enjoyed not bothering with the social stuff or direct daily contact online with anyone even though they like talk radio, classical plays, sermons, DIY projects,(lavish) online shopping etc. (my pet peev, darn too much shopping)

Mom always viewed stories and pictures as destructive attention, good attention given there are living siblings is ok OFFLINE, online, dangerous in that predators do not necessarily go after the adults or baby boomer parents, they will go after the children even adult children to harm and weaken everyone, they are evil and its child abuse to risk privacy and no, privacy doesn't exist, from home to a walk to a store its (micro) cameras and the regular cams.

People say it takes one bad beta orbitor but its not THAT, whats scary is hot red livid gamma rage, that is scary and real. Not good.

Blogger LP9 January 11, 2018 7:32 PM  

90 Correct its about a wake up of call of following thru ones logic; are certain behaviors actually harmful and dangerous and not all fun and games online, yes, protect be careful age 0 to the 20's where again one's pre frontal cortex isn't there yet, even our 30 year olds can be taken for fools, lured into a 'meet up' and be taken and killed, its NO joke.

Life or death, homeschool or die.

Blogger Zeke OF Confettii January 11, 2018 8:50 PM  

I have friends who met Ed Kramer. Oh. Hell. No.

Anonymous GodEmperorMemes January 11, 2018 11:49 PM  

I always feel sorry for those cats, although they're probably better off than the toy dogs the fags seem to like.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf January 12, 2018 3:13 AM  

I suppose it depends on the culture. In Japan it's mostly frowned upon to put photos of your children into the public space. But that said, it's perfectly acceptable if the same child were to appear in a children's television show. Of course you could argue that this is wrong as well or that it's a job, but the point is "the public" generally view kids on t.v. or movies as socially acceptable.

The thing is, the line between the two is beginning to blur. And so my opinion is not a yes or no, but to consider if what your child and you are doing is beneficial for the child, or not beneficial. For example, if they like gaming and have a gaming channel, so long as you run it, and it does not appear to be harming them, then maybe it can be beneficial for a number of reasons. It's really a matter of determining what is and is not benefitial and being involved in your child's online and offline life.

Posting a child crying is NOT doing the child any benefit. Don't do that.

Blogger Kona Commuter January 12, 2018 4:50 AM  

Good luck getting any respect from anyone as an adult if your mother posts a video of you having a tantrum when you're a child. It's just not going to happen. High School would be a horrible experience if your bully gets a hold of the video.

Seriously, what's so hard about respecting your childs request not to be posted online? For that kid to have had to resort to a court order you know his mother was a nutter

Blogger Ceerilan January 12, 2018 6:06 PM  

I find the desire to post family pictures on Facebook culturally similar to the desire to post family pictures all over one's house. Many American families do this. For parents stuck in their own little world, we need to keep reminding them that Online is in public, and smart phone pictures aren't portraits.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts