18 year old Austrian Suing Parents for Facebook Photos posted over Time

[8circles]

It doesn't matter whether they're crazy or not, they have a right not to have you posting their images - especially their naked images! - all over the internet. You have no right to post that stuff without their permission. And that's what we're discussing - a situation where the parents are utterly unreasonable, and now they're being taken to court.

 

I agree.  If the parents have been asked to take down photos of their kids and they refuse - for ANY reason, they have now become "the crazies".  That's not an unreasonable request, no matter the reason behind it.

[Mom-ninja.]

Not sure if you mean taking the picture in the first place, or posting to social media. If it's the latter, I disagree with you. I think children have a right to privacy and especially when they are old enough to comprehend and communicate to you if it bothers them. 

 

I never would have thought about this, but 1 out of my 3 children is very private and gets so embarrassed when I post his pic to FB. I don't quite understand why, as he's adorable, but I respect that and almost always ask his permission first before posting. He's elementary age, BTW. I would be very embarrassed if my parents posted some of my pics on social media, especially during the tween/teen, awkward years. Those pics were awful. 

 

I agree. As a parent I don't have the right to post my children's pictures on the internet. The internet is forever, people. I don't think a lot of people realize that. They view posting pics on social media as some sort of scrapbook or photo album. Posting pictures on Instagram, blogs, Facebook, etc is very different that the photo albums or boxes of photos our parents had of us. I do not post pictures or videos of my kids on the internet.  

[Guest]

I have not read the thread yet, but I agree with the girl that is suing her parents.

 

Children have a right to privacy. If you just obliterate that privacy from the JUMP, they never, ever get a real chance to figure out what that means for themselves.

 

I know everyone, basically, disagrees with me there. But everyone WOULD, wouldn't they, because "everyone" thinks it's A-OK to document everything that happens with their kids online, in photos or otherwise.. I strongly disagree.

 

I've btdt with blogging through my life/ my kids lives. I decided it was wrong of me to do that, and stopped.

[gardenmom5]

It doesn't matter whether they're crazy or not, they have a right not to have you posting their images - especially their naked images! - all over the internet. You have no right to post that stuff without their permission. And that's what we're discussing - a situation where the parents are utterly unreasonable, and now they're being taken to court.

the crazy people are the parents who refuse to take down the pics.   I'm sure the dd asked many times, and probably begged too before resorting to suing her parents *JUST* to get the pictures taken down. - which was a reasonable request.

 

I wanna know how they define public. Are the pictures viewable to only the friends list or is the facebook page set to public? Could they compromise and have her photos only circulated around non strangers? If that still made her uncomfortable, though, I think they should respect her wishes and take them down in either case.

 

it's irrelevant how they define public.  she doesn't want the photos circulated at. all.  she has that right.  these aren't pictures of her having a bad hair day.

[MinivanMom]

I know that some states like Calif have passed so-called "revenge porn" laws that make it illegal to post nude pictures of someone without their permission. Do those laws extend to minors? Do they extend to minors once they turn 18? 

 

I know "revenge porn" laws are aimed at ex's, but couldn't they theoretically be applied to clueless, vengeful, or mentally ill parents/relatives.

[Murphy101]

It doesn't matter whether they're crazy or not, they have a right not to have you posting their images - especially their naked images! - all over the internet. You have no right to post that stuff without their permission. And that's what we're discussing - a situation where the parents are utterly unreasonable, and now they're being taken to court.

Actually, no they do not have that right. There is no legal right to that currently in Austria or in the USA. Maybe there will be some day, but there is not one now.

 

Personally, I'd be okay with it being illegal to even take and or post pictures of other adults or other people's children without their permission. But legally, I have no right to demand that.

 

And I'm unsure how far it should go either.

 

For example, the crazy I know pitched a fit over a group photo in a frame in my house that happens to include them. Too bad. I'm not tossing it or giving them the original to appease their psychosis.

 

Just last night, a business owner of a place I was at, took my photo without asking and I'm pretty sure it will be online within the next month. I suppose I could pitch a fit about it, but legally I don't have a right to demand photos never be taken or used of me while out in public.

[maize]

Actually, no they do not have that right. There is no legal right to that currently in Austria or in the USA. Maybe there will be some day, but there is not one now.

 

Personally, I'd be okay with it being illegal to even take and or post pictures of other adults or other people's children without their permission. But legally, I have no right to demand that.

 

And I'm unsure how far it should go either.

 

For example, the crazy I know pitched a fit over a group photo in a frame in my house that happens to include them. Too bad. I'm not tossing it or giving them the original to appease their psychosis.

 

Just last night, a business owner of a place I was at, took my photo without asking and I'm pretty sure it will be online within the next month. I suppose I could pitch a fit about it, but legally I don't have a right to demand photos never be taken or used of me while out in public.

There's a lot of gray here for sure!

 

Out in public though is a far cry from sitting on the toilet in your own home.

[gardenmom5]

 

For example, the crazy I know pitched a fit over a group photo in a frame in my house that happens to include them. Too bad. I'm not tossing it or giving them the original to appease their psychosis.

 

 

if it was a group photo - you'd think they knew their picture was being taken . . . they could have sat out then.

[Murphy101]

if it was a group photo - you'd think they knew their picture was being taken . . . they could have sat out then.

It was not an "everyone come take this picture" group shot but more a "there's a gathering over there and someone captured it in a picture" type of group shot.

[heartlikealion]

Anyone can take your photo and share it. I blocked someone from viewing my profile, but a mutual friend shared my photo and the blocked person was able to see it and comment. If the photo is on the internet, it is not private, no matter the settings.

 

Well, yeah, but that's not what I mean. And I don't know if you mean hit the "share" button or literally saved the image to their PC and then send the file to someone. My settings prevent my stuff from being shared to people that aren't on my friends' list but of course someone could screen capture or download an image and share if they were determined. I also know that profile pics and cover images are public. My profile is not searchable to public, but if I comment/post anywhere, people can click on it and see them so I think twice about what I use.

 

[heartlikealion]

the crazy people are the parents who refuse to take down the pics.   I'm sure the dd asked many times, and probably begged too before resorting to suing her parents *JUST* to get the pictures taken down. - which was a reasonable request.

 

 

it's irrelevant how they define public.  she doesn't want the photos circulated at. all.  she has that right.  these aren't pictures of her having a bad hair day.

 

While I don't disagree that the principle is the same, I am personally curious what they are calling public. Is it like Mom and Dad's 50 facebook friends, Mom and Dad's 300 facebook friends, the whole internet or what.

 

[TranquilMind]

While I don't disagree that the principle is the same, I am personally curious what they are calling public. Is it like Mom and Dad's 50 facebook friends, Mom and Dad's 300 facebook friends, the whole internet or what.

 

 

There is no privacy on Facebook.  Your photos are forever captured there.  If I recall correctly, those photos belong to Facebook (or any social media site) once posted.  You have granted a perpetual, irrevocable,  non-exclusive worldwide license to the social media site by posting the photo.  The site can even license your photo to third parties without your consent.  You have agreed to all of this in the 10 billion pages of ever-changing terms. 

Be careful what you post. 

 

[ErinE]

Well, yeah, but that's not what I mean. And I don't know if you mean hit the "share" button or literally saved the image to their PC and then send the file to someone. My settings prevent my stuff from being shared to people that aren't on my friends' list but of course someone could screen capture or download an image and share if they were determined. I also know that profile pics and cover images are public. My profile is not searchable to public, but if I comment/post anywhere, people can click on it and see them so I think twice about what I use.

 

Your friend can share your photo and then it's only covered by your friend's settings. I researched this pretty extensively when I discovered the issue. I've resigned myself that once I share a photo, I have no control what happens after.

[Corraleno]

While I don't disagree that the principle is the same, I am personally curious what they are calling public. Is it like Mom and Dad's 50 facebook friends, Mom and Dad's 300 facebook friends, the whole internet or what.

 

 

The article doesn't specify what the parents' FB settings are, but the girl does say that there are 700 people on her parents' friends list, so at least 700 people can see them — and any of those 700 people could copy or share them if they wanted to. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There is no privacy on Facebook. Your photos are forever captured there. If I recall correctly, those photos belong to Facebook (or any social media site) once posted. You have granted a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive worldwide license to the social media site by posting the photo. The site can even license your photo to third parties without your consent. You have agreed to all of this in the 10 billion pages of ever-changing terms.

Be careful what you post.

 

You are incorrect. Simply Google "does Facebook own my photos" and you can find the limited licensing agreement.

[TranquilMind]

You are incorrect. Simply Google "does Facebook own my photos" and you can find the limited licensing agreement.

Nope. Read the terms.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nope. Read the terms.

I have. You are wrong. There is no copyright transfer and you do not transfer ownership of the photos. Edited September 16, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[cave canem]

Either way, sounds like bad parenting to me. (Option three is some sort of mental health issue that couldn't be avoided, I suppose.)

Yes.

[Garga]

I don't post pix of the kids without their permission. I would take any down they want taken down.

 

I also don't post stories or anecdotes about them on FB unless I get their permission. If you see anything I've posted about the kids on FB, then you know I've asked them if it was ok.

 

The only place I put some person things on about the kids is here and I try to keep it as light as I can. And I post here because I want real help or suport or am trying to give someone real help. Like, my son's struggles years ago to learn to read: when I was going through it, I needed support. And now when others are despairing about teaching reading, I will mention that my son learned late, but did learn, though it was hard.

 

I am getting more and more leery about posting here, but at least future employers will not know who my kids are based on anything they read here. On FB, they would know names or see faces, so I am careful to be sure the kids are ok with what I post there. And I've been considering taking down old pictures in old folders from back before I used to check with them about pictures.

 

I've been doing it this way for about 2 years now, so since the kids were 9 and 12.

 

I can't imagine being stubborn about it and leaving up pictures the kids were embarrassed about. That's just rude behavior. But, there are a lot of rude people out there. They are close-minded and cannot see another person's viewpoint. Sounds like the girl's parents are those kind. They just can't see her pov.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Garga

[Garga]

As far as legalities of picture taking: if you are on public property, anyone can take your picture anytime and do anything with it. Not everyone knows that, but it's the law. (I've done photography work and have read up on it.)

 

If they take your picture when you are on private property, like through your window, then that is illegal. You cannot take pictures of people in places where they have an expectation of privacy, like in their own homes.

 

I suppose since these pictures were taken on private properly (in the girl's home), she can stand on that legally and demand they be taken down.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As far as legalities of picture taking: if you are on public property, anyone can take your picture anytime and do anything with it. Not everyone knows that, but it's the law. (I've done photography work and have read up on it.)

 

If they take your picture when you are on private property, like through your window, then that is illegal. You cannot take pictures of people in places where they have an expectation of privacy, like in their own homes.

 

I suppose since these pictures were taken on private properly (in the girl's home), she can stand on that legally and demand they be taken down.

I have no idea how Austrian law will interpret the matter, but I am not sure she would have a claim against the parents under U.S. law. Generally you do not have a broad expectation of privacy when you are in/on the property of another, with exceptions made for places like bathrooms where a reasonable expectation still exists.

 

At the time the photos were taken, she was a minor, and her consent would not have been required, and cannot usually be revoked retroactively. Think of this is the same vein as child models or actors - parents are required to give permission for the child's images to be used, and an adult who had a bare butt photo as a toddler in a diaper ad or artistic picture cannot make a claim years later that their privacy was violated.

 

To me it seems like the daughter *should* be able to demand that photos be taken down. I am just not sure there is a legal justification for it.

Edited September 16, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[TranquilMind]

I have. You are wrong.

Well, you need to understand what you are reading. Facebook retains a non-exclusive, TRANFERABLE (emphasis mine), sub-licensable, royalty free worldwide license to use your photos in any way... though you retain "ownership".

 

There is little distinction between this extraordinarily broad license and your ownership, unless you are careful to keep everything private, to delete each photo after you post it and/or or cancel your account, and assuming no one ever saves your photos, which anyone who is your friend can do, unless restricted. Oh, and assuming whatever "reasonable time" as deemed by Facebook, has passed since you deleted.

 

Exact wording:

 

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

 

When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

 

Speaking of those backup copies, I have seen deleted photos pop up numerous times months after the fact before it disappears and you then get a notice that this content has been deleted.

 

The photos are still there. I would love to know how long a "reasonable time" is to Facebook.

 

And don't forget that Facebook owns Instagram. http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/28/technology/do-i-own-my-instagram-photos/

Edited September 16, 2016 by TranquilMind

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, you need to understand what you are reading. Facebook retains a non-exclusive, TRANFERABLE (emphasis mine), sub-licensable, royalty free worldwide license to use your photos in any way... though you retain "ownership".

 

There is little distinction between this extraordinarily broad license and your ownership, unless you are careful to keep everything private, to delete each photo after you post it and/or or cancel your account, and assuming no one ever saves your photos, which anyone who is your friend can do, unless restricted. Oh, and assuming whatever "reasonable time" as deemed by Facebook, has passed since you deleted.

 

Exact wording:

 

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

 

When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

 

Speaking of those backup copies, I have seen deleted photos pop up numerous times months after the fact before it disappears and you then get a notice that this content has been deleted.

 

The photos are still there. I would love to know how long a "reasonable time" is to Facebook.

There actually is a significant distinction. Long story short, that license means that if you post something on FB you are giving permission for it to be shared on FB. Which makes sense since it is a social media platform designed to share material. I suggest you spend some time actually studying copyright law if you want to understand the distinction better.

[TranquilMind]

I have. You are wrong. There is no copyright transfer and you do not transfer ownership of the photos.

i never said the copyright transferred. The ability to use your stuff at will under the ridiculously broad licensing agreement and even transfer the right to others to use it is sufficient, though you technically retain ownership.

 

If you gave consent to free, unlimited, and TRANFERABLE use of every dollar in your bank account, It really does not matter to the ones granted free access if the bank account is technically still in your name, does it?

Edited September 16, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

There actually is a significant distinction. Long story short, that license means that if you post something on FB you are giving permission for it to be shared on FB. Which makes sense since it is a social media platform designed to share material. I suggest you spend some time actually studying copyright law if you want to understand the distinction better.

That limitation does not exist. Intentionally. You do understand what the word "transferable" means, I presume?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

i never said the copyright transfered. The ability to use your stuff at will under the ridiculously broad licensing agreement and even transfer the right to others to use it is sufficient, though you technically retain ownership.

 

If you gave consent to free, unlimited, and TRANFERABLE use of every dollar in your bank account, It really does not matter if it is technically still in your name, does it?

Again, this is what happens when you pretend to understand copyright law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That limitation does not exist. Intentionally. You do understand what the word "transferable" means, I presume?

You don't in this context.

[TranquilMind]

Again, this is what happens when you pretend to understand copyright law.

So you don't understand it. I see.

[TranquilMind]

You don't in this context.

Sigh.Don't believe me, then.

 

Believe this attorney then, whose link is fairly simply worded:

 

http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/

 

Who Owns Photos and Videos Posted on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter?

 

Well, it depends on what you mean as “own.†Under copyright law, unless there is an agreement to the contrary or the photograph or video is shot as part of your job, a copyright to a photograph generally belongs to the creator. As the copyright owner, you own the exclusive rights to display, copy, use, produce, distribute and perform your creation as you see fit and approve. As the subject of the photograph, you have a right to publicity, which allows you to get paid for the commercial use of your name, likeness or voice.

 

But what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter (using Twitpic), or some other social network or photo-sharing site?

You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own†the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use you picture as well! This means that not only can Twitter, Twitpic and Facebook make money from the photograph or video (otherwise, a copyright violation), but these sites are making commercial gain by licensing these images, which contains the likeness of the person in the photo or video (otherwise, a violation of their “rights of publicityâ€).

 

Facebook

 

Under Facebook’s current terms (which can change at anytime), by posting your pictures and videos, you grant Facebook “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any [iP] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP Licenseâ€). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Beware of the words “transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license.†This means that Facebook can license your content to others for free without obtaining any other approval from you! You should be aware that once your photos or videos are shared on Facebook, it could be impossible to delete them from Facebook, even if you delete the content or cancel your account (the content still remains on Facebook servers and they can keep backups)! So, although you may be able to withdraw your consent to the use of photos on Facebook, you should also keep in mind that if you share your photos and videos with Facebook applications, those applications may have their own terms and conditions of how they use your creation! You should read the fine print to make sure you are not agreeing to something that you don’t want to have happen.

Twitter

Edited September 16, 2016 by TranquilMind

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So you don't understand it. I see.

I do. You clearly do not. I should have learned my lesson years ago when you confused by search warrants and the seizure of servers. Lesson learned on my part.

[TranquilMind]

I was not the confused one, but that's ok. Tell yourself whatever narrative works for you.

 

I suppose all the legal sites out there have confused attorneys as well, such as the one in my previous post.

 

Ok.

Edited September 16, 2016 by TranquilMind

[heartlikealion]

In the past when I deactivated my facebook account I was unable to remove a couple of the photos, but others I was able to delete. And as stated above, it's unclear how long backups are kept if they are there.

 

Corraleno answered my actual question.

 

I do not think the average person is resharing photos in some odd discreet way. Typically people are going to hit the "share" button and then you will see "this photo has been shared X times," so the daughter would know who was doing what with her pics, but yes, anything is possible.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was not the confused one, but that's ok. Tell yourself whatever narrative works for you.

 

I suppose all the legal sites out there have confused attorneys as well, such as the one in my previous post.

 

Ok.

 

I guess so, although the one you cited doesn't say exactly what you think it does.

[kiwik]

I don't post or allow my kids pictures to be posted. But I can't control what others do all the time - I have to go over it with the school every year- so I guess some have slipped through. So many people just don't think twice about it.