other people posting pics of your kids on facebook

CrazyRabbit

I'm shocked that so many have a problem with these pics being online. What is the harm really?

Paranoid much?

FYI...your children are probably recorded on CCTV systems several times per day & you have no knowledge of who is looking at the footage.

vitani

anonymum wrote: »

I would not like someone posting pictures of me all over their facebook page without consent.

Going back to the OP, I wonder if this is where some people here differ. I do quite a few races these days, and so there's often photos of me put up online afterwards. I don't particularly mind, although I do prefer that they're reasonably flattering Same with photos that friends or family put up.

Even before Facebook, I didn't really mind - I was in a couple of local papers for school events, and our annual yearbook in secondary school usually had a couple of photos of me that I didn't know would be included.

Is it the consent issue that bothers people, or is it something else?

Calhoun

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I'm shocked that so many have a problem with these pics being online. What is the harm really?

Paranoid much?

FYI...your children are probably recorded on CCTV systems several times per day & you have no knowledge of who is looking at the footage.

As a parent who grew up during the early stages of the internet, i have seen how bad it can be and no matter how civilised it is today you can never be too careful.

The harm is simply that 1. its damage limitation, just because there could be other sources that people could view images of kids doesnt mean i want to open the floodgate for a free for all, and 2. as a parent with responsiblity over my own child i feel its only right that i have a say in the control over how their image will be used or who gets to share images of them.

As for being paranoid, do what you want with your own kids but dont be throwing labels around just because people dont agree with your viewpoint.

lazygal

I guess it comes down to whether you mind or not. We do mind. We don't post photos of ourselves really either on Facebook. If people want to see photos of our children, we'll show them, but not on Facebook. I'm fully aware I'm in the minority. Most people have no issues posting one or many pictures of their children on Facebook, in private albums or publicly. That is their choice to make for their children. But equally others are allowed to make different choices. I don't see the big deal about not posting photos. I don't see the big deal about not posting photos, but my children are my responsibility and as far as is practicable we have decided to share images of them in other ways.

I have told my parents I'm glad they didn't share my image online when I was a baby, with the messy eating photos or me eating ice-cream in the park. I remember a case a few years ago where Budget Travel used an image of a child in a public swimming pool as a cover for their brochure. The child was upset when she became a teenager and got a good bit of slagging about it. How would people feel if that was their child, photographed in a public setting but used for commercial purposes? Adults, not babies and children, control their online footprints.

eviltwin

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I'm shocked that so many have a problem with these pics being online. What is the harm really?

Paranoid much?

FYI...your children are probably recorded on CCTV systems several times per day & you have no knowledge of who is looking at the footage.

I don't see any "harm" in it as such, I just don't feel comfortable with it, I like my privacy and I hate my own image all over FB so I suppose that just extends to my kids as well. I don't post lots of pictures of my family, my house etc for that reason and most of my friends know that so if they started doing that on my behalf I wouldn't like it. I'd find it quite disrespectful.

Das Kitty

I post photos of mine on FB to share with friends. I would never post a photo of someone else's child without consent though. I don't mind when people post photos of mine, and I do appreciate being asked about it beforehand.

There was one particular photo that was quite funny, and someone suggested putting it up on reddit. That's where I drew the line. I don't want photos of my children going viral. It happened on a low level with a photo of my eldest, and I kept seeing it with strangers' comments. Mostly complimentary, some weird, as you'd expect. It annoyed me as I had asked for it not to be shared, but at the end of the day I put it up, and really it was mild annoyance and no harm.

Big Bag of Chips

I suppose another question to ask is how many of your "friends" are actually interested in seeing photos of your kids?!

I think the likes of Facebook has made ordinary, everyday people think they are interesting :P Ok, that's a bit tongue-in-cheek. But honestly, most people aren't that interesting (and others aren't that interested!) that we need multiple daily updates and to see photos of their kids playing football in the park or eating an ice-cream... Etc.

I know we all think our own kids are wonderful.. but very few others are bothered about them and their footballing/ice-cream eating skills.

Das Kitty

It's easy to hide updates though. So I don't really see it as an intrusion on people's feeds.

TBH, I love seeing a smiling happy baby pic to break up all the whingeing about politics and like-and-share crap.

I have my Facebook feed the way I want it at the moment, I rarely see a post that annoys me anymore.

Big Bag of Chips

Das Kitty wrote: »

It's easy to hide updates though...

Ah, I know that... And I'm not really talking about the odd photo of something genuinely cute, or note worthy. I'm talking about why some people feel the need to post pictures of: "Kyle** sitting on the couch watching Peppa Pig". "Kyle sitting at the table waiting for his dinner." "Kyle standing at the front door waiting to go to town"

Do these people think Kyle's movements are really that interesting that they are worthy of being "shared"??

**Kyle is a fictitious character and any resemblance to a person in real life is coincidental

Das Kitty

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Ah, I know that... And I'm not really talking about the odd photo of something genuinely cute, or note worthy. I'm talking about why some people feel the need to post pictures of: "Kyle** sitting on the couch watching Peppa Pig". "Kyle sitting at the table waiting for his dinner." "Kyle standing at the front door waiting to go to town"

Do these people think Kyle's movements are really that interesting that they are worthy of being "shared"??

**Kyle is a fictitious character and any resemblance to a person in real life is coincidental

:P

I do think that sometimes (and sometimes worry I'm like that). But then I just think an over-abundance of love is preferable to the opposite. It might not be ideal for the kid (or the friends), but coming from a home where one parent was one way and the other was the other, I know which is easier to live with!

Big Bag of Chips

Das Kitty wrote: »

But then I just think an over-abundance of love is preferable to the opposite.

You can love your child with over-abundance without telling your friends about it every 3 minutes :P

I don't mean you, as in you specifically (I don't think I've ever seen a photo of your "Kyle" :P ) You know the type of person I mean. I mean the type of person who from their homepage would appear to spend 10 or 11 hours a day on Facebook entering competitions, liking those feel good pictures and posting about how much they love their kids... Well go feckin interact with your kids then!!! Show THEM you love them, because most adult will assume that most parents love their kids. You don't have to keep telling us... Although your kids might want to hear it occassionally!

Ok.. time to step back now I'm annoyed... (I have a particular "Kyle" in mind )

eviltwin

There is a "kyle" in my life too...its annoying, on the average day there will be about 10 - 15 updates on this child and what she has done. I get that people like to share things, first day at school, medal for playing football, halloween costume etc but there is such a thing as overkill.

Big Bag of Chips

The thing about the "Kyle" I know is that if you were to believe Facebook this woman would be a contender for mother-of-the-year..

Unfortunately, she's definitely not

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I like my privacy and I hate my own image all over FB so I suppose that just extends to my kids as well.

That is likely the point where opinions diverge. The fact is we ALL like our privacy. Some of us simply do not see images on FB as being an impingement upon it.

I think we see sometimes that some people against the posting of such images say "I like my privacy" as if they somehow assume that people who are ok with such images do not. They such people care not for privacy at all.

The reality is just about all of us, with very few exceptions "like our privacy". We do not see the posting of images on FB or other such media as conflicting with that however.

For me, as I said, the rule of thumb is that an image being seen by a person on the internet that COULD have been seen by that same person had they been passing by when the image was taken - is instantly NOT a privacy concern. For me. The difference between a person seeing a photo of my child playing in the park - and that same person having been in the park actually seeing my child live - is perceisely zero.

Calhoun

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is likely the point where opinions diverge. The fact is we ALL like our privacy. Some of us simply do not see images on FB as being an impingement upon it.

I think we see sometimes that some people against the posting of such images say "I like my privacy" as if they somehow assume that people who are ok with such images do not. They such people care not for privacy at all.

The reality is just about all of us, with very few exceptions "like our privacy". We do not see the posting of images on FB or other such media as conflicting with that however.

For me, as I said, the rule of thumb is that an image being seen by a person on the internet that COULD have been seen by that same person had they been passing by when the image was taken - is instantly NOT a privacy concern. For me. The difference between a person seeing a photo of my child playing in the park - and that same person having been in the park actually seeing my child live - is perceisely zero.

That's fine as long as you respect that other parents see things differently and have a more rigid view of privacy,

December2012

I think it applies to all childhood information shared on social media. How often do you see pictures / posts that give irrelevant information about their kids? (Before you "unfollow" them!)

If "Kyle" is 2 he has no voice or way to object to having his pictures constantly up on Facebook.

If "Kyle" is 22 he does have a voice and way of objecting.

If Kyles mother wouldn't put up a picture of him in his funny hat / complaining that he has diarrhoea when he's 22 she shouldn't do it when he's 2.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

That's fine as long as you respect that other parents see things differently and have a more rigid view of privacy,

I respect that fact. But I also respect the right of people to do what they will with their own cameras and the contents of them. It is not a simple black and white argument. It is one of those that divides people right down the middle. And hence is an interesting one for it.

And we can dig deeper and deeper down into such arguments and reach a point where the reality of it is, is that some people are trying to control photons - and whos eyeballs they enter. Which leaves one questioning ones own sanity

But "privacy" is one of the real political battle grounds at many levels these days. Which is why people get so impassioned about a topic such as this thread. It is a microcosm sample of a much larger argument. And my position in that argument is I can see no useful way to privatize what happens in public. From pictures of your children in the park - to the arguments about Google Maps Cars driving down public streets taking photos for "google street view".

To me the only way to render that which makes sense is to simply accept that what happens in public - is public domain. And if that includes pictures of my daughter frolicking in the local fountain - so be it.

To render it using the words of the poster above me. Kyle has no voice or way to object to being walked down occonell street where any old joe soap will see him either.

Calhoun

As I said you have your opinion I have mine, just because there is a legal right to stake picture in public doesn't mean I agree with.

I accept there are many ways that images could be captured but for me it's damage limitation when I'm dealing with people I know I ask them not to put them up.

I don't get where you are going with the larger argument, this conversation started more from a morale standpoint rather than the letter of the law, the op wanted opinion and what others felt. Looking at something so broad as privatising public life would be unworkable from a legal standpoint but it still doesn't mean that parents can't take an opposing view. It's like saying your that people can do nothing about it so just let it happen.

Big Bag of Chips

I suppose on the pictures in public thing.. if my child was in the park, playing football and a complete stranger approached them and started taking photos of them I wouldn't be happy.

Just because they can see them in the park doesn't give them a right to capture and keep that image! I would be very uncomfortable with that and wonder what use they'd have for photos of kids they didn't know.

I suppose online pictures are different to local newspaper pictures. Once a picture goes online you have no control over where it goes or what it is used for. You (or someone else) have "published" that picture and it is up there for anyone who wishes to take it, copy it, use it etc. Now, as mentioned before, I don't think too many people would be interested enough in "Kyle" to take and copy his pictures etc.. but the potential is there.

I know when I saw the picture of the little lad, with a scrunchy little face and the caption "Grand stretch in the evenings", I thought to myself... That was obviously someone's picture that was taken and captioned. I don't think he "posed" for it, or his parents took it with the intention of it going viral.

So I suppose things like that can make people wary of their kids' pictures being uploaded.

Edit: This picture is the one I was talking about.

fatherted1969

As someone who forever has a camera slung around his neck at football and soccer matches I've always asked permission from opposing coaches whenever i take pics at games.

I suppose its a different world we now live in and while i personally don't see the issue with capturing a child in full flow at a game or taking a team pic some parents obviously for.

I'd take 1000's of pics throughout the year and never once have i had someone question me about it. We have a consent part on our registration forms in our club and no one has ever ticked the no pics box.

Big Bag of Chips

Ahh... I was waiting for a comment from photographers/amateur photographers!

I do think there's a difference (whether rational or not!) with a photographer taken pictures of kids for record keeping/historical purposes etc, and just a randomer in a park taking a photo of your child.

There is a local photographer in our area who always always has his camera with him. We used to hate seeing him come as kids because we knew he'd get us to sit for a photo. NOW.. looking back at all his pictures he has taken of us at various events, it's wonderful to see all the pictures and remember the days they were taken.

It's a fine line I suppose. We know him. We know he has our pictures and we love looking through them. No matter how cringey they are! But I'd feel a bit weird if I thought a stranger who has no idea who I am had an old photo of me playing football in the local park stuck in the back of a drawer somewhere (or these days, in a folder on their laptop!!)

It might be irrational, and there might be no difference in a photographer having a few photos of me, and a "Joe Soap" having a few photos of me. I suppose the difference is the "Joe Soap" has no need to have a picture of me!!

the_syco

Das Kitty wrote: »

There was one particular photo that was quite funny, and someone suggested putting it up on reddit. That's where I drew the line. I don't want photos of my children going viral.

I'm assuming this is why most people don't want pictures of their kids going online to one degree or another.

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Do these people think Kyle's movements are really that interesting that they are worthy of being "shared"??

You'll find that these people will relive their lives through the kids.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

As I said you have your opinion I have mine

I had never noticed. Glad you pointed it out. :-p

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't get where you are going with the larger argument

I just think it is a smaller example of a larger argument about privacy. And privacy is one of those hot topics that gets people riled up quite fast I have noticed. Look around the threads no the forum related to Google Street View for example. Discussions on it get really heated - really fast.

CrazyRabbit

Found something on Distractify site a few mins ago that reminded me of this thread.

How does this harm the kid?
http://news.distractify.com/people/ministylehacker-4-year-old-fashion/

Can anyone give me a real life example of how innocent pictures posted on Facebook, Instagram etc has actually caused harm for the child in question?

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

I had never noticed. Glad you pointed it out. :-p



I just think it is a smaller example of a larger argument about privacy. And privacy is one of those hot topics that gets people riled up quite fast I have noticed. Look around the threads no the forum related to Google Street View for example. Discussions on it get really heated - really fast.

Yes but if we were arguing the letter of the law and the wider issue in society fine, but this thread was related to a parent and possibly known family or friends.

So the argument that there is no point being offended probably won't fly here but then again they probably don't fly in other threads like this.

iguana

December2012 wrote: »

If Kyles mother wouldn't put up a picture of him in his funny hat / complaining that he has diarrhoea when he's 22 she shouldn't do it when he's 2.

I do post photos of my son on Facebook and my rule is this, before I post a photo I think about how my son's future classmates would react if 14-17 years from now they saw the photo. And I never, ever, ever post up photos of other people's children, even if I know they post up photos of them themselves. Everyone one has their own guidelines and it's not my place to try to guess or overstep their boundaries.

December2012

iguana wrote: »

I do post photos of my son on Facebook and my rule is this, before I post a photo I think about how my son's future classmates would react if 14-17 years from now they saw the photo. And I never, ever, ever post up photos of other people's children, even if I know they post up photos of them themselves. Everyone one has their own guidelines and it's not my place to try to guess or overstep their boundaries.

I agree with you - personally I do the exact same.

IvyTheTerrible

iguana wrote: »

I do post photos of my son on Facebook and my rule is this, before I post a photo I think about how my son's future classmates would react if 14-17 years from now they saw the photo. And I never, ever, ever post up photos of other people's children, even if I know they post up photos of them themselves. Everyone one has their own guidelines and it's not my place to try to guess or overstep their boundaries.

If I could thank this more than once, I would. This is how I see it too.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Yes but if we were arguing the letter of the law and the wider issue in society fine, but this thread was related to a parent and possibly known family or friends.

I know. I said that too. Merely pointing out that it is an example of a larger argument is not to change or take away from the thread topic. It is to add to it. It is worth realising the kinds of points you see on a thread like this are a smaller battle in a larger war.

If it were to come down to laws and votes and so forth - I certainly would not be voting to give anyone the right to preclude others from posting such pictures though. My vote would be against such a thing. As I said attempting to privatize what occours in the public sphere is not a road I would go down.

Calhoun

True something like that probably wouldn't pass, for many good and valid reasons. Other than the law regarding commercial use of an image i would agree with it as is.

In relation to the scenario the OP originally posted (it being a family member/friend), that could and really should only be handled without resorting to legislation.

I think for most folk what it comes down to is that, as a parent you are sharing intimate family moments with the family member/friend which you may not want shared. Obviously if you share it yourself then all bets are off and you dont really have a leg to stand on.