Should parents be able to post up pictures of their kids without permission?

[Pickman's model]

On a related note, I just had an email demanding I take down a photo that included a child in a park. Normally I have no problem with such requests, but this one is really taking the piss:


(image changed)

I've removed it anyway but it seems a bit over the top when the child is completely unrecognisable.

the child, perhaps, but the ensemble of clothes seems to me fairly distinctive

 

[Clair De Lune]

My kids got to a certain age and requested I not post pics online without their approval. Totally fair enough I thought. It makes it extra special when they do let me

 

[Clair De Lune]

Not quite. I got a message saying photos of your children had been taken without her permission, adding that she wasn't happy about it.

I don't need permission to take photos of people in public places and I don't like the insinuation that I've done something wrong in doing so.

However, as a courtesy, I immediately took both photos down as requested even though the child is quite clearly completely unrecognisable in both images.

But I'll remove this one too, while retaining my opinion that the reaction is completely over the top.

I think it is a discussion worth having though - I may be completely wrong after all - and that's why I posted up a context-stripped image here. I'm sorry you took offence at that too,

This was not a good apology, just saying.

 

[maomao]

My kids got to a certain age and requested I not post pics online without their approval. Totally fair enough I thought. It makes it extra special when they do let me

If I put a photo of my daughter on here she keeps asking how many likes she got

 

[Clair De Lune]

If I put a photo of my daughter on here she keeps asking how many likes she got

Heh my youngest used to be like that asking me to post pictures of him with his fave toys and lego builds.

 

[moomoo]

I run a fb group and a woman kept sending in pictures of children wearing T shirts that she’d made/sold relating to the subject of the group. I had to tell her over and over that I couldn’t post them unless I had permission from the parents. Her reply was that she had permission to share them. I had to explain that, although she had permission to share, I didn’t and therefore would not be posting them. It took a while for her to get it. We’ve also had a similar issue with another group. Grateful recipients have been sending in pics of their kids but we’re not publishing any now. It’s all down to safeguarding and risk assessment. Whilst I know that posting a pic here where I am fairly anonymous or on my very locked down private FB is without much risk, to post pics publicly in a group and especially with identifiying clues in them (school uniform logos etc) is a massive no, no.

 

[RoyReed]

This was not a good apology, just saying.

editor hasn't done anything that he needs to apologise for.

 

[kebabking]

editor hasn't done anything that he needs to apologise for.

#bumsnorkler?

Personally I am uneasy with the idea of posting a picture on one forum, being asked by the 'owner' of the image to take it down, and then reposting it somewhere else to guage opinion. Now, OTOH, I can see that it would be pretty much impossible to have any kind of productive conversation about the ethics of an image without being able to see it.

Given previous conversations here about taking pictures of other people's children, I think the word blindspot is appropriate.

 

[Clair De Lune]

I don't think editor did anything wrong in taking or posting the photo fwiw. I didn't see the full image but I bet it was joyous. But when editor reposted here and said he doubted they'd see it, I thought oh dear, I bet they will. And when I saw they had, I cringed. It was awkward. At that point I felt they deserved a proper apology. That's all.

 

[Spymaster]

Photographers should be able to take and publish pics of people in anonymous groups but once someone complains or asks for an image of themselves or their kids to be removed, that should be done without question, as seems to have happened here. However, reposting the image elsewhere “for debate”, even altered, is just silly, and subsequent complaints should be met with an immediate apology, not a partial defence.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

I recently received an email of complaint after photographing the Xmas swim just gone. It went along the lines of, “ I didn’t know this photo was being taken, now you’re selling it, that’s illegal, remove it now”, blah blah.

As a photographer I know my legal rights. The image in question was filed by me to a press agency I freelance for, two stock agencies bought the image, & a UK newspaper bought it to be used online. So no, I didn’t reply to the email, or request it’s removal & it seems some people should never leave the house ever again, especially at Xmas for a swim in a public place! I have removed images on request in the past though, for varying reasons.

<waits for lurker to appear>

 

[editor]

I don't think editor did anything wrong in taking or posting the photo fwiw. I didn't see the full image but I bet it was joyous. But when editor reposted here and said he doubted they'd see it, I thought oh dear, I bet they will. And when I saw they had, I cringed. It was awkward. At that point I felt they deserved a proper apology. That's all.

They've both already had an apology by PM.

 

[Poot]

I recently received an email of complaint after photographing the Xmas swim just gone. It went along the lines of, “ I didn’t know this photo was being taken, now you’re selling it, that’s illegal, remove it now”, blah blah.

As a photographer I know my legal rights. The image in question was filed by me to a press agency I freelance for, two stock agencies bought the image, & a UK newspaper bought it to be used online. So no, I didn’t reply to the email, or request it’s removal & it seems some people should never leave the house ever again, especially at Xmas for a swim in a public place! I have removed images on request in the past though, for varying reasons.

<waits for lurker to appear>

It does worry me that the same law would allow teens and pre-teens making poor choices to be photographed by people and published, regardless of their feelings on the matter. And it might follow them around for years. That's not your fault, it's just a fact but it feels very unfair.

Also, should never leave the house? Because they want to swim without having their picture taken surreptitiously and splashed all over a paper? Come off it.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

It’s a very publicised annual event. Ban the press?

 

[mojo pixy]

always ban the press

 

[Poot]

It’s a very publicised annual event. Ban the press?

If you're responding to me I don't think I ever once suggested this.

 

[WouldBe]

It does worry me that the same law would allow teens and pre-teens making poor choices to be photographed by people and published, regardless of their feelings on the matter. And it might follow them around for years. That's not your fault, it's just a fact but it feels very unfair.

Also, should never leave the house? Because they want to swim without having their picture taken surreptitiously and splashed all over a paper? Come off it.

Dodgy ground. What do you do about photos or TV of football matches or concerts or demos or or or or.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

always ban the press

Let’s start with banning all public events

 

[Mr.Bishie]

If you're responding to me I don't think I ever once suggested this.

I know you didn’t - it’s another throw away comment similar to not leaving the house to take part in a well publicised annual news worthy event in a public place.