children on other peoples social media

[Koldo]

Actually I can compare it to a billboard if I want to.

Of course you can do unreasonable things if that's what you want.

I haven't made an issue of it with anyone in my personal life. The whole point I was making was that I think it is the duty of the people taking pictures to let people know IN ADVANCE if they know they plan to make those pictures public.

I don't think it's something everyone should take for granted that just because they have the ability to snap pictures and post them on the internet, that it somehow gives them the right to assume other people should want them to do it -- without simply checking with the parents.

If you want to take a position that a parent ought to practice mental telepathy and read someone's mind, in order to say in advance they don't want their child's photo made public, when they may note have thought about, since it's something they would not do -- OK. I'm just saying I think the person that is going to post the pics has the duty to let people know, so a parent could remove their child from being photographed if they wanted to. I don't think parents should have to assume they are giving someone the right to publically post their pics for simply attending a party.

Actually, mental telepathy is what would be required to imagine that any of the parents would have a problem with a birthday party picture being posted online. The thought may not even cross many people's mind. Therefore, since it is the parent, and not the party host, that takes issue with this, it is up to the parent in question to mention it in advance.

This stands true for multiple other accommodations. Let's say that at this same party there was a child with Coulrophobia ( fear of clowns ). Should the party host have asked in advance about that too ? This adds up and puts an undue burden on the shoulders of the host. Everything becomes much more simple if the parents let these things be known in advance.

 

[4consideration]

Of course you can do unreasonable things if that's what you want.

Thank you.

Actually, mental telepathy is what would be required to imagine that any of the parents would have a problem with a birthday party picture being posted online. The thought may not even cross many people's mind. Therefore, since it is the parent, and not the party host, that takes issue with this, it is up to the parent in question to mention it in advance.

This stands true for multiple other accommodations. Let's say that at this same party there was a child with Coulrophobia ( fear of clowns ). Should the party host have asked in advance about that too ? This adds up and puts an undue burden on the shoulders of the host. Everything becomes much more simple if the parents let these things be known in advance.

I still disagree. Since there is a known danger of predators online, and there is a known danger of them possibly scanning social media, to act like it is somehow strangely unreasonable for a parent not to want their child's photo made public seems really weird to me. Maybe I'm strange, but I don't go around taking other people's pictures and posting them online without their knowledge.

Of course I recognize there are plenty things like fear of clowns a party host shouldn't be expected to anticipate. There is the level of the absurd that I recognize...but, criticizing people for not wanting their child's photo posted online, but acting like they don't need to be informed in advance, in order to voice objection seems backwards to me. I agree that the parents should let things be known in advance, and IMO it is the one that taking things beyond the level of the party, and into the public viewing arena, that out of sheer courtesy, ought to make it known in advance.

Would you be okay with someone having a hidden camera in their home, and entertaining you, or your children, at a party -- while streaming that online without your knowledge? Does attending a party give the host the right to make it a public display?

Really, how hard is it to ask people at a party if they object to having their child's photos posted online?

It could be done right before singing "Happy Birthday." Here. I'll make it easy on everyone. Just say: "We're going to be posting some B-Day pics online. If you don't want your child's pic posted online, please let us know."

 

[Koldo]

Thank you.

I still disagree. Since there is a known danger of predators online, and there is a known danger of them possibly scanning social media, to act like it is somehow strangely unreasonable for a parent not to want their child's photo made public seems really weird to me. Maybe I'm strange, but I don't go around taking other people's pictures and posting them online without their knowledge.

Of course I recognize there are plenty things like fear of clowns a party host shouldn't be expected to anticipate. There is the level of the absurd that I recognize...but, criticizing people for not wanting their child's photo posted online, but acting like they don't need to be informed in advance, in order to voice objection seems backwards to me. I agree that the parents should let things be known in advance, and IMO it is the one that taking things beyond the level of the party, and into the public viewing arena, that out of sheer courtesy, ought to make it known in advance.

I haven't said that it is unreasonable for a parent not to want their child's photo made public. Do not build a straw man.
This is also completely different from randomly taking pictures of children and uploading them. Do not build a straw man.
I am also not criticizing people for not wanting their child's photo posted online. Do not build a straw man.

Photo albums have existed for such a long time, and we never had to ask permission to show them to anyone.
It is expected that such photographs may be seen by pretty much anyone. This is not beyond the level of what's expected from a party at all.

Would you be okay with someone having a hidden camera in their home, and entertaining you, or your children, at a party -- while streaming that online without your knowledge? Does attending a party give the host the right to make it a public display?

No, since that is a sneaky oddity. A completly different scenario.

Really, how hard is it to ask people at a party if they object to having their child's photos posted online?

It could be done right before singing "Happy Birthday." Here. I'll make it easy on everyone. Just say: "We're going to be posting some B-Day pics online. If you don't want your child's pic posted online, please let us know."

Or, the parents could just talk to the party host. Simple as that.

 

[freethinker44]

I think, at a birthday party, the expectation should be that pictures will be taken and placed on social media. If a parent objects to any pictures being posted at all, then they should just not go. Besides, even if you could control what the host does with their pictures, you can't control what other parents do with theirs. At my kid's parties there's at least a few parents there taking pictures of their kids playing with our kids, and we share them on social media. We don't have a problem with it, since they almost always catch something we missed.

However, if there are individual pictures that caught something inappropriate or something you wouldn't want the whole world seeing, then I think it's reasonable to request they be taken down. For example, we had a pool/slip-and-slide party and we ended up not posting most of those pictures unless they were wrapped in a towel, instead just emailing them to the kids parents. I mean, it was totally innocent but I don't want some pedophile getting off on my kid because she had half her butt cheek hanging out after going down the slide.

 

[Politesse]

Is this a reasonable want from a parent?

Yes. I consider publication to be publication, whether in a book or on the internet. And the same rules should apply. Photographs of a public event in a public space are one thing, soemone's kid in their home quite another. Professional photographers normally have to have parental permission to publish kid pics, so I don't see how the internet should be different.

 

[freethinker44]

Yes. I consider publication to be publication, whether in a book or on the internet. And the same rules should apply. Photographs of a public event in a public space are one thing, soemone's kid in their home quite another. Professional photographers normally have to have parental permission to publish kid pics, so I don't see how the internet should be different.

Photographing people in public is acceptable because you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place or any place that can be viewed from a public place, so the question is, do people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's home or property? I don't think so.

 

[4consideration]

I haven't said that it is unreasonable for a parent not to want their child's photo made public. Do not build a straw man.
This is also completely different from randomly taking pictures of children and uploading them. Do not build a straw man.
I am also not criticizing people for not wanting their child's photo posted online. Do not build a straw man.

Photo albums have existed for such a long time, and we never had to ask permission to show them to anyone.
It is expected that such photographs may be seen by pretty much anyone. This is not beyond the level of the party at all..

It's funny to me that you said I could be unreasonable if I want to, by comparing posting pics online to a billboard, yet you seem to be comparing posting pics online to photo albums that have traditionally remained in the home, and viewed only by people actually known to the family, and while in the family home. I think a billboard is closer for online photographs than a photo album.

I realize that you did not say it was unreasonable for a parent not to want their child's picture made public.

I did not mean what you seem to think I meant about not going around and posting people's pics. What I meant was I don't go around taking people's pictures and assuming it's ok to post them online. That means anyone. I don't post other people's pictures online without their permission. Period. I think it's rude. Even though the picture is taken with knowledge and consent, does not automatically mean I think it's ok to post it online.

I think that especially for small children, to post a lot of pics online from something like a birthday party -- multiple pics of the activities, location, and attendees is dumb. It can give a predator plenty of information to be convincing to a child that he/she is known and safe...talking about who was there, where it was, what they did. For those that want to broadcast that kind of information, that's their business.

In the OP the scenario involves parents that have come forward to say they don't want their children's pics posted online.

I take it a step further. I think parents that don't want their kids pics broadcast should be given the opportunity to know about it. To me, the duty always lies with the person who is taking the action, rather than the one who is not. If you are posting, it's your duty to at least alert parents to your intent to post. It's not someone else's job to guess that you will be posting their pics online.

Or, the parents could just talk to the party host. Simple as that.

Exactly. That was mentioned in the OP.

I never said the parents couldn't talk to the host. But...I think the host should let parents know they are planning to post pics and give the opportunity to say no. At the very least, though, if a parent brings it up, the request should be honored. The host ought to announce it up front, so that they can make sure to get photographs they'd like to post, with kids whose parents have given permission.

Even in the most benign situations, IMO it's prudent to ask and get a parent's permission for certain things.

 

[Politesse]

Photographing people in public is acceptable because you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place or any place that can be viewed from a public place, so the question is, do people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's home or property? I don't think so.

Again, you would if it were any other kind of photo publication. That's like saying models don't get to control their image because they were in someone else's studio when they were taken. Why is the internet supposed to be this free zone from the law? Just because it is thirty years "new"?

 

[Curious George]

Your thread is specifically about the internet. I am addressing that and that alone. I'm not following you down this rabbit hole.



Never said it was. I'm talking specifically about the internet, and specifically about always granting someone's request for such privacy when they make such a request. If it isn't feasible, it needs to be. That it's so difficult to grant such requests is part of the problem.



Common sense. As I said before, if someone is incapable of understanding why a person might not want their private life plastered all over the planet on an uncontrolled medium that is pretty much forever where it can be gossiped about, scrutinized, critiqued, mocked, harassed, and even slandered, no amount of me explaining it to them is going to get them to understand.

Yes, yes, and if someone is incapable of understanding why this hyperbole is not a realistic portrayal, then no amount of explaining is going to help.

Thank you for your comments. It seems that this is just how you feel and you lack a solid explanation beyond "if you can't see how I feel is right, I can't show you."

Perhaps I just like chasing rabbit holes. But, I do see conflict behind the various positions, and that is largely what I am interested in pondering.

Cheers.

 

[Curious George]

Actually I can compare it to a billboard if I want to.

(edit: Lots of people can see a social media photo, and over a very long period of time. I think an online photo can be more dangerous than a billboard. I've observed some people do what I think is really dumb things with photos of children/party photos -- like post photographs online, in real time, basically announcing..."aren't these really cute kids? They are right here at XYZ place right now, and later we'll be going to ______ place." I think people are nuts sometimes.)

I haven't made an issue of it with anyone in my personal life. The whole point I was making was that I think it is the duty of the people taking pictures to let people know IN ADVANCE if they know they plan to make those pictures public.

I don't think it's something everyone should take for granted that just because they have the ability to snap pictures and post them on the internet, that it somehow gives them the right to assume other people should want them to do it -- without simply checking with the parents.

If you want to take a position that a parent ought to practice mental telepathy and read someone's mind, in order to say in advance they don't want their child's photo made public, when they may note have thought about, since it's something they would not do -- OK. I'm just saying I think the person that is going to post the pics has the duty to let people know, so a parent could remove their child from being photographed if they wanted to. I don't think parents should have to assume they are giving someone the right to publically post their pics for simply attending a party.

What about people who are not featured in the picture, but are still in the background?

 

[Curious George]

Yes. I consider publication to be publication, whether in a book or on the internet. And the same rules should apply. Photographs of a public event in a public space are one thing, soemone's kid in their home quite another. Professional photographers normally have to have parental permission to publish kid pics, so I don't see how the internet should be different.

So of the bday party is at a park it is ok, but if it is in a backyard it is not?

 

[Politesse]

So of the bday party is at a park it is ok, but if it is in a backyard it is not?

Well, it still seems a bit rude. I don't really see why consent is offensive in the first place, I must admit.

 

[freethinker44]

That's like saying models don't get to control their image because they were in someone else's studio when they were taken.

Umm, they don't. Unless there is a contract stating otherwise, the photographers own the copyrights.

 

[Curious George]

Again, you would if it were any other kind of photo publication. That's like saying models don't get to control their image because they were in someone else's studio when they were taken. Why is the internet supposed to be this free zone from the law? Just because it is thirty years "new"?

Well I think there are several factors at play that matter. Models have a more of a right in there image because they have made investment and specifically cultivated it. But in general, if memory serves, uncopyrighted images ownership, belongs to those featured in the photographs. So unless the parent takes legal steps, I could understand much of what you are saying. The internet is different though. We now live in a world where nearly every over the age of 12 carries a camera that can instantaneously "publish" pictures. Children as young as 5 carry smartphones. Most children have an online presence. Kids themselves are "publishing" pictures of themselves and there friends. Are copyright laws even applicable to the internet and technology in light of our current situation? Next we have the harm factor if we are going to talk about legality. Without harm, there is no problem. And I very well understand the threat of harm involved in this, but does a person's "privacy" settings on social media change this? What about online storage and not social media? Is there a difference?

 

[Curious George]

Well, it still seems a bit rude. I don't really see why consent is offensive in the first place, I must admit.

Yes, but you might be labeled a sjw that is overly concerned with pc (no worries, so would I). I think for many people, the idea of frontloading and giving adequate notice, sounds reasonable. I am curious about what people, who think that we have become too pc, think about this. While a simple solution to the op, how far can we take such an idea? What about kids who post? What about people who have kids in background of photos they post, do we pursue consent from everyone? On the flip side, if I am a parent worried about this, can I not even take my child to the park without worrying that someone will get a picture, unintentionally, and then post? Do privacy settings change the argument?

 

[4consideration]

What about people who are not featured in the picture, but are still in the background?

I'm not really sure. If the person in the background is identifiable, then I think it's about the same as being featured. If one can't see clearly enough to identify an individual, or they are turned away from the camera, I think it's less important.

For me, the point is if one is holding an event, and one knows in advance one plans to post pics, I think it should be mentioned beforehand. I'm inclined to respect someone's wishes as it relates to them even if I disagree or think it's silly. If there was a child (or anyone) in the background and a parent said no, I think one should either find a way to remove the child from the image, or not post it. I can't imagine any B-Day photographs that I'd think are that crucial to post online...that I be inclined to ignore a parent's wish it not be posted.

 

[freethinker44]

Yes, but you might be labeled a sjw that is overly concerned with pc (no worries, so would I). I think for many people, the idea of frontloading and giving adequate notice, sounds reasonable. I am curious about what people, who think that we have become too pc, think about this. While a simple solution to the op, how far can we take such an idea? What about kids who post? What about people who have kids in background of photos they post, do we pursue consent from everyone? On the flip side, if I am a parent worried about this, can I not even take my child to the park without worrying that someone will get a picture, unintentionally, and then post? Do privacy settings change the argument?

People in public are giving implied consent, so there is no reason to seek consent from them.

 

[Curious George]

Umm, they don't. Unless there is a contract stating otherwise, the photographers own the copyrights.

I am not sure this is completely correct. Yes, photographers have ownership, states and jurisdiction can limit or even change this depending on the content of the photo. This will get very messy if we try to fit regular photos into copyright law. But if the picture is invasive, I am pretty sure courts have given copyright to the person featured. If it is a non invasive pic in a public setting, I think it is then completely owned by photographer.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm not really sure. If the person in the background is identifiable, then I think it's about the same as being featured. If one can't see clearly enough to identify an individual, or they are turned away from the camera, I think it's less important.

For me, the point is if one is holding an event, and one knows in advance one plans to post pics, I think it should be mentioned beforehand. I'm inclined to respect someone's wishes as it relates to them even if I disagree or think it's silly. If there was a child (or anyone) in the background and a parent said no, I think one should either find a way to remove the child from the image, or not post it. I can't imagine any B-Day photographs that I'd think are that crucial to post online...that I be inclined to ignore a parent's wish it not be posted.

I actually think it's kind of rude to ask people at a birthday party not to take or post photos of your children. Taking pictures of kids at their birthday party should be expected. If people object to having their kids picture taken and shared, they should not bring them. If someone asked me at my kids birthday party to not take or share pictures of the event that captured their child, I would ask them to leave.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not really sure. If the person in the background is identifiable, then I think it's about the same as being featured. If one can't see clearly enough to identify an individual, or they are turned away from the camera, I think it's less important.

For me, the point is if one is holding an event, and one knows in advance one plans to post pics, I think it should be mentioned beforehand. I'm inclined to respect someone's wishes as it relates to them even if I disagree or think it's silly. If there was a child (or anyone) in the background and a parent said no, I think one should either find a way to remove the child from the image, or not post it. I can't imagine any B-Day photographs that I'd think are that crucial to post online...that I be inclined to ignore a parent's wish it not be posted.

I think a person would be inclined to share a picture of their child if the picture was cute. Frontloading works great for the birthday invitees, but in public parks? What if another child, that was not part of the event, is in the pic and is identifiable? Is there an obligation to pursue consent? What of children posting pictures of themselves and friends?