Data Protection Query: Taking Photos of Kids

124

Comments

  • Kayalana99
    Kayalana99 Posts: 3,626
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    The first point, is once something is on facebook - you agree under facebook terms about it being able to share etc.

    So commerical use aside, they are right if a photo/video is on facebook and publically availble - yes they can share it legally and if there are any issues, the orignal poster would be sought after (if they legally wern't allowed to upload the video etc)

    However, 'public place' does not count as a dance studio. That is 100% not public, and parents should not be allowed to take photos/videos of other people's kids without permission from the ballet company themselves.

    Here is where it gets a bit 50/50...are the ballet company allowed to let parents film other people's kids and upload to facebook? If they have permission to allow photography yes - but if not then I'm not sure.

    Either way, the person *if* any legal recourse here, is the parent that uploaded the video.

    As soon as something is on facebook, they are giving permission for it to be shared (but not stolen directly)

    "Facebook
    With over a billion users, Facebook is the definitive homepage for many web users. Its terms of service, data use and cookie use policy span more than 14,000 words over eight separate pages and would take even the quickest reader more than two hours to dig through. But what rights have you handed over to Facebook?
    Specifically for photos and video uploaded to the site, Facebook has a license to use your content in any way it sees fit, with a license that goes beyond merely covering the operation of the service in its current form. Facebook can transfer or sub-license its rights over a user’s content to another company or organisation if needed. Facebook’s license does not end upon the deactivation or deletion of a user’s account, content is only released from this license once all other users that have interacted with the content have also broken their ties with it (for example, a photo or video shared or tagged with a group of friends)."
    People don't know what they want until you show them.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    DJBenson wrote: »
    Last time I checked, taking photos (certainly at council run pools) was strictly forbidden, so the comparison is miles off the mark.

    Likewise for a previous comment on beachwear - if a camera was pointed at my children on the beach and I was not aware of the reason, I would be having a word in the photographers ear to put it mildly.

    That's fine. But you would have no legal basis for complaint in the beach scenario.

    Private property can set their own rules.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Sadly I think anyone can be filmed or photographed anywhere these days. I don't agree with it, but the majority, who own so-called smart phones, think it's perfectly ok.

    Not anywhere but 99% of the time you'd be correct
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Kayalana99 wrote: »
    The first point, is once something is on facebook - you agree under facebook terms about it being able to share etc.

    So commerical use aside, they are right if a photo/video is on facebook and publically availble - yes they can share it legally and if there are any issues, the orignal poster would be sought after (if they legally wern't allowed to upload the video etc)

    However, 'public place' does not count as a dance studio. That is 100% not public, and parents should not be allowed to take photos/videos of other people's kids without permission from the ballet company themselves.

    Here is where it gets a bit 50/50...are the ballet company allowed to let parents film other people's kids and upload to facebook? If they have permission to allow photography yes - but if not then I'm not sure.

    Either way, the person *if* any legal recourse here, is the parent that uploaded the video.

    As soon as something is on facebook, they are giving permission for it to be shared (but not stolen directly)

    "Facebook
    With over a billion users, Facebook is the definitive homepage for many web users. Its terms of service, data use and cookie use policy span more than 14,000 words over eight separate pages and would take even the quickest reader more than two hours to dig through. But what rights have you handed over to Facebook?
    Specifically for photos and video uploaded to the site, Facebook has a license to use your content in any way it sees fit, with a license that goes beyond merely covering the operation of the service in its current form. Facebook can transfer or sub-license its rights over a user’s content to another company or organisation if needed. Facebook’s license does not end upon the deactivation or deletion of a user’s account, content is only released from this license once all other users that have interacted with the content have also broken their ties with it (for example, a photo or video shared or tagged with a group of friends)."

    The criminal justice act defines a public place anywhere where the public have reasonable access. Yes property owners can set rules, but it's not a crime.
  • Gloomendoom
    Gloomendoom Posts: 16,550
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Guest101 wrote: »
    Not anywhere but 99% of the time you'd be correct

    And it's not "these days", it's always been the case.
  • I suspect the only way you'll be content is to take her out of her classes.

    Which would be a shame, because the local weirdo is more likely to get joy out seeing her playing in the park than possibly getting hold of a film of lots of children doing baby ballet in a safe and caring setting.

    Or I suppose you could try looking for baby burkhas online. That wouldn't be weird at all if, after all, it only makes it easy for sickos to perve over children when you allow them to be visible.

    Seriously, infants aren't expected to cover themselves up even in the most sexually oppressive regimes, because they are infants, even though people who are that way will still find them attractive. They're more likely to be knocking one out to the readily available Pampers advert than searching for Miss Maisie's Ballet for the Under 3s matinee performance.

    Which reminds me, you need to get in touch with the baby milk manufacturers to let them know that the ad of the toddler pointing her toes and apparently thinking of being a ballerina is sexually suggestive.


    Just withdraw permission for your daughter to be featured in promotional material, report the clip to Facebook several times (using copyrighted material is probably easier than trying to explain to them that you think the clip contains indecent material) and I'm sure it'll drop off the internet at some point.


    Heaven help your daughter when she hits puberty if you're worried about her turning men on before she's even fully toilet trained.
    I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die: I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by.
    colinw wrote: »
    Yup you are officially Rock n Roll :D
  • DJBenson
    DJBenson Posts: 445
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    I suspect the only way you'll be content is to take her out of her classes.

    Which would be a shame, because the local weirdo is more likely to get joy out seeing her playing in the park than possibly getting hold of a film of lots of children doing baby ballet in a safe and caring setting.

    Or I suppose you could try looking for baby burkhas online. That wouldn't be weird at all if, after all, it only makes it easy for sickos to perve over children when you allow them to be visible.

    Seriously, infants aren't expected to cover themselves up even in the most sexually oppressive regimes, because they are infants, even though people who are that way will still find them attractive. They're more likely to be knocking one out to the readily available Pampers advert than searching for Miss Maisie's Ballet for the Under 3s matinee performance.

    Which reminds me, you need to get in touch with the baby milk manufacturers to let them know that the ad of the toddler pointing her toes and apparently thinking of being a ballerina is sexually suggestive.


    Just withdraw permission for your daughter to be featured in promotional material, report the clip to Facebook several times (using copyrighted material is probably easier than trying to explain to them that you think the clip contains indecent material) and I'm sure it'll drop off the internet at some point.


    Heaven help your daughter when she hits puberty if you're worried about her turning men on before she's even fully toilet trained.

    Take a step down from your high horse for a minute and take a moment to read back over my post, I'm very interested in hearing where you think I said my daughter was in the video. :rotfl:

    A couple of parents involved with the school have been discussing this situation and I thought "why not ask the MSE bunch" - it's a bit wild west sometimes but the general consensus normally surfaces.

    So distilling the advice, sarcasm and judging comments on my parenting skills - the pragmatic approach would be to get the original poster to take the post down, only she's not a member of the school, she attended for a trial and hasn't been back since, so that might be a waste of time, but it seems the best/only approach which is exactly what I wanted to get to the bottom of.
  • DJBenson wrote: »
    Take a step down from your high horse for a minute and take a moment to read back over my post, I'm very interested in hearing where you think I said my daughter was in the video. :rotfl:

    A couple of parents involved with the school have been discussing this situation and I thought "why not ask the MSE bunch" - it's a bit wild west sometimes but the general consensus normally surfaces.

    So distilling the advice, sarcasm and judging comments on my parenting skills - the pragmatic approach would be to get the original poster to take the post down, only she's not a member of the school, she attended for a trial and hasn't been back since, so that might be a waste of time, but it seems the best/only approach which is exactly what I wanted to get to the bottom of.

    Admittedly you haven't explicitly said your daughter was in the video but your OP does imply she is.

    My view is that whilst there are issues to be wary of, if we assume that everyone is up to no good then we might as well give up now - society has no future.
  • DJBenson wrote: »
    A situation has arisen and I wanted to dig a little deeper into the social and legal implications from you good people.

    My daughter attends a ballet class aimed at very young children (less than 4) and a debate has kicked off about the taking and sharing of photographs in the class, especially considering (due to the nature of the activity) the children are wearing relatively revealing clothing.

    A parent has taken a video of their child and inadvertently captured other children in the video. They have then shared the video to social media.

    From what I can gather, the above is fine (the law allows for the taking of photographs in public places for personal use - sharing to social media may be pushing the boundaries of "personal use" but lets say that this is acceptable).

    The debate is more around the ballet company sharing the video to their timeline. If a school or other organisation wants to use a photo or video of children, they generally need to get the consent of every parent whose child features in the video, but in this instance, they are not the authors of said video so do not feel they need consent.

    The question is, even thought they are not the authors, they are using the video for promotional purposes and subsequently removing the "personal use" element from the original video, so where does that leave the parents from a data protection perspective.

    If there are any lawyers or childcare professionals in the house, I'd be very keen to get your views.

    Over to the floor - don't hold back :D

    DJBenson wrote: »
    Take a step down from your high horse for a minute and take a moment to read back over my post, I'm very interested in hearing where you think I said my daughter was in the video. :rotfl:

    A couple of parents involved with the school have been discussing this situation and I thought "why not ask the MSE bunch" - it's a bit wild west sometimes but the general consensus normally surfaces.

    So distilling the advice, sarcasm and judging comments on my parenting skills - the pragmatic approach would be to get the original poster to take the post down, only she's not a member of the school, she attended for a trial and hasn't been back since, so that might be a waste of time, but it seems the best/only approach which is exactly what I wanted to get to the bottom of.

    Fair enough. Didn't think you'd be so interested or so cross with posters who didn't agree it's risky/poor practice if it wasn't you bothered about your own kid being in the video.

    If it's not your kid in the video, it's not anything to do with you. Let them make idiots of themselves unaided.
    I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die: I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by.
    colinw wrote: »
    Yup you are officially Rock n Roll :D
  • Robisere
    Robisere Posts: 3,237
    First Anniversary Photogenic Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    edited 20 May 2017 at 3:32PM
    Guest101 wrote: »
    I must say that is by far the most over the top security I've heard of.


    It's a photo, not a gun!

    And it protects the children, by ensuring that the parent(s) are in charge of what happens to the photos. You obviously missed the point, don't you understand that there are evil people out there who would love to get their hands on the photos? The dance group is professional and is not about to lay themselves open to any legal problems. There are children involved from very young ages.

    Perhaps you missed what can happen, without the proper security:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/steiner-schools-have-some-questionable-lessons-for-todays-children-a7402911.html

    As some have said - it's rare. Yes it is, but that's no consolation to those affected. Rae means it still happened.
    I think this job really needs
    a much bigger hammer.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards