Slashdot Mirror
A Woman Is Suing Her Parents For Posting Embarrassing Childhood Photos To Facebook
Earlier this year, we ran a story which talked about how a parent could be sued by their kids for posting their photos on Facebook. Over the past two years, we have seen several such cases, and now we have another one. From a report on NYMag:An 18-year-old woman in Carinthia, Austria, is suing her parents over the 500-odd childhood photos they've posted of her on Facebook without her consent. "They knew no shame and no limit and didn't care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot -- every stage was photographed and then made public," she told The Local, an English-language Austrian newspaper. She went on, "I'm tired of not being taken seriously by my parents," who, despite her requests, have refused to take the photos down. The woman's father reportedly believes he's in the right to post the pictures because he took them. But her lawyer is adamant that if he can prove the photos violated the woman's right to privacy, her parents could be forced to pay damages and legal fees.
can we see those photos?
Be or ben't
Someone clearly needs to "Grow The Fuck Up" (tm).
Part of life. Get over yourself.
It has been some years since specialists began to warn about the dangers of over exposition of children online.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
I'm trying to wrap my brain around a parent who says no to their child's request that photos of the child be taken down from the Internet. This isn't even an issue of good parenting, it's an issue of common courtesy!
Do parents need consent if they are already granted the rights to make legal decisions for their under 18-year-old children? Can't they just decide for the kid as is their obligation and right?
Christmas dinner is going to be AWKWARD!
The days of her parents not taking her very seriously are coming to a middle.
According to Wikipedia, the age of majority in Austria is 18.
Whether you win or lose, they can literally kick you out of their home and cut off all support.
I wonder if you really thought this through.
Let me take a stab at this: the parents are wealthy.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Teenagers are tricky create they often have little empathy of their own yet are highly sensitive to perceived slights and are easily embarrassed. They are also impulsive and easily convinced to do things that are ultimately only going to be self destructive like suing ones own parents over a relatively minor thing.
I can understand both attitudes here. As a parent you need to show that it is you are in control and you who make the rules. You don't have to stop doing something because your children don't approve, but they will not be permitted to do what you find objectionable beyond the leeway you might be willing to afford them.
On the other hand if it was my kid this isn't the hill I'd pick to die on (well I never would have posted the stuff in the first place). I think I would say well mom and I posted those pictures because we are proud of you and our family but if they make you uncomfortable we will mark them private so only us and your grand parents can see them. Seem like this would be a good moment to show some empathy and hope the kid models in the future.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Sure, if the parent was knowingly (or at least with reasonable assumption) aware that a brand of diapers was causing harm, you most certainly can sue. If I was neglected or mistreated as a child, be it a parent, guardian, orphanage, etc.. I'd be in good standing to sue. As parent, you're talking the life and care of the child in your hands (if you don't like it, put them up for adoption). If you don't like big brother telling you how to raise your kids, move somewhere that doesn't care what the fuck you do to kids.
Bye!
Well the fact that she is now 18 legally she is an adult. While people mature at different rates, and many 18 year olds still have a lot of maturity problems. However the parents who should have more empathy should had listened to their child's concerns and take them down, and not use such a thing as some sort of power play. For this particular case seems out of hand.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Boomer approach when they were 18 would join a commune smoke a bunch of stuff and 40 years later find ways for everyone to pay their medical bills.
Generation X approach would just leave the house and live off of internet stock.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Ahh, so _you_ are the arbiter of personal pride for all other people in the world right? Or they are "trolls" as you so gleefully liked to claim.. Your last line is all we need to know about you, a SJW
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think this is a very particular case, not a sliding scale.
As she is now 18 she has a professional reputation that she need to maintain as well an online presence. Kids pictures from the parent without the adult childs consent is rather hindering.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Man, it's like nothing makes sense anymore! Naked girl on fire good, naked girl not on fire bad, how exactly are we deciding these things?!
Must be a Millennial.
I don't know... suing them is showing initiative so can't be a typical Millennial.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
An 18 year old would have been born in '97 or '98. A lot of people like to cut off the definition of millenials at '95.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
People will sue for anything these days. I get the premise,and the embarrassment, but to go as far as to sue? for actual cash revenue? from her parents? She must either A.) Hate her parents or B.) Is greedy a hell. Considering she's 18 I am wondering if she was at some point financially cut off from her parents, and this is a way to retaliate. Then again I could be wrong.
Are you attempting to claim that the person is correctly handling conflict resolution by asking the Government to give her "her" way? Sorry, but that is absolutely not conflict resolution, it's bullying. Given that action, how likely is it that she ever talked to them and asked them to take down any photos compared to trying to bully her parents into taking the pictures down? I could be wrong, but generally gauge people pretty well.
I agree that there could be problems on both sides, but her side is open for inspection. Pictures of her on a potty chair (one of the ones I heard she had in her complain) are not bad by default. My parents had pictures of me on the potty chair, another in my undies with Chicken Pox, etc.. I didn't do the same for my kid, but that's not in any way claiming my parents were wrong. It was a personal preference where I simply didn't take photos like my parents did. They invested hundreds of hours on setting up photo albums, I didn't.
If the pictures were of her being naked it would be considered porn and her parents would have had to remove the photos and probably be facing criminla charges. That is not the case presented thus far, if you have different evidence show it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Who has u19925's naked baby pictures? Let's post them in public and see how u19925 likes it! Do you mind if I have your local newspaper publish them?
Holy shit this thread is full of people who can't tell the difference between what should remain private and posting shit for all the world to see. Here I was starting to think this site had recovered somewhat.
At least here in the USA, such things have happened (kids filing lawsuits against their parents over various grievances) -- but I think 99.9% of the population takes a very dim view of it.
I guess I'm ok with the legal OPTION being available for such things? But it seems really extreme. I'm not sure that most minor kids fully realize the ramifications of doing such a thing. I mean ... as much as you may dislike your parents embarrassing you with your childhood photos, you may later decide that was "nothing" compared to a lifetime of not communicating with your parents anymore (which is VERY likely to be the outcome if you won a lawsuit against them).
If the pictures were of her being naked it would be considered porn and her parents would have had to remove the photos and probably be facing criminal charges.
Simple (or non-sexualized) nudity -- even of minors -- is usually not considered porn or illegal. Haven't seen the photos in question, but context is important.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This isn't really about the photos per se.
To be bothered by something so ordinary is pathological, so ask yourselves, why is she so self conscious to be bothered by this ordinary thing.
There is actually a big clue in the story, the parents refused to take down the photos because the "father _owns_ them".
That shows a complete lack of empathy for ones own child is hugely narcissistic.
One of our neighbors' daughters graduated from high school this year. She and her sister used to hang out with my two kids when they were much younger. They'd stage and record these "shows" using a camcorder. It was tame and goofy stuff. So before her graduation party I posted a couple of them on youtube and shared the link with my neighbor. I marked it as private.
I reassured the mom that it wasn't public. She didn't care, - but the kids sure did. They were mortified at the thought that their friends might find it. Teenagers are VERY image conscious. Even though they'll post the dumbest stuff on youtube, snapchat, and instagram, - things that they'll find much more embarrassing a decade from now, they want to control their image. I get that.
There is no doubt in my mind that childhood pictures could be a source of ridicule for a teen. At the same time, I doubt their friends' or enemies' opinions about them are influenced one way or the other by naked baby pictures. As a teen it's hard to see that though and I think the parents need a little more empathy in this case. It's idiotic that something like this requires intervention by a court to resolve but I blame the parents both for being stupid about it and for raising a kid that would file a lawsuit over it.
Some mistakes have to be made ourselves before we can learn from them.
85-00 should be Gen Y. Millennial should be everyone born since then
Ya, it's the lawyers fault the parents posted naked pictures of their child and the child wants them taken down. Thanks Obama!
Both. The daughter suing her parents over this is absurd but the parents not removing them when it evidently upsets her this much is appalling.
So, what should she do if her parents refuse to remove photos, including her "sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot"?
You're telling me it's "absurd" for her to sue, and she should "Grow The Fuck Up (tm)". But you're not telling me what she should actually do. What choices does she have other than suing?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
One thing to consider: the older you get, the more you're going to want your kids to contact you, and the less they'll need for you. Don't burn those bridges.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Boomer: '45-'65
Gen X: '65-'85
Millennial: '85-'05
The people who cut off Millennial at '95 need to share their definitions of generations...
This. If you don't think someone born at the turn of the millennium is a Millennial, well, don't expect others to share your private definition.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
My son was seven when he told me & my wife that we'd better be nice to him because later on he'd be the one choosing our retirement home...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Holy Fugging Sheet this is my parents in an absolute nutshell. My father was a professional photographer most of my life so there is a literal mountain of pictures of me as a kid. And, of course, they cherry pick out the most absolutely fucking embarrassing ones along with their now distorted view of the background of the picture that is always, somehow, is 10x worse then reality. Of course they will argue through their teeth what they remember is the absolute truth. I honestly think they relish in the whole production. I'm desensitized to it now, hell it's been 30+ solid years of it...
I don't think I would ever sue my parents, but I can understand where this all is coming from.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle"
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Gen Z is who should be called Millennials. In fact, skip the Gen Z label, and use that for everyone born after 2025. After that, use iOS or Windows versioning rules to label the generations.
You can sue anyone for whatever you like. Question is, will you win? BTW, I didn't say diapers are causing harm, just that they were wrong brand.
I have full freedom to decide how I want to raise my kids as long as I am not breaking any law. There is no law against using cheap diaper, buying ugly clothes or posting innocuous photos. If you can sue (and win) here, how will you prevent someone suing parent for sending him to soccer game causing injury?
Every parents in the world has done few things that their grown up kids might not like. If you think big brother should interfere than you are the one who needs to leave this world. Parents want freedom, not your diktat.
I really don't care. I didn't want the kids in the first place, so...if they want to be nice to me and have me around, great. If they are going to be a pain in my ass, I write them out of the will. Their loss, not mine. I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in each of them and did all the required labor, with my teeth gritted the whole time because their mother is a wretch. The rest is up to them.
And that stuff about 'deciding where you go to a retirement home' doesn't matter if you have your documentation properly written. Have a valid power of attorney already in place and living wills, etc, naming someone responsible and decent as your heir/caretaker. One of my daughters is a total asshole and the other one ...same age as the kid in this article...the jury is still out on. Neither will have any power over me unless they demonstrate capability to exercise it properly.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
You have the power to write your own will, living will, and power of attorney. Independent of your wife. Use it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I could be wrong, but generally gauge people pretty well.
There is not enough back story really to draw a conclusion.
People and the motives that move them through the day are not that simple, I would recommend against that type of attitude. People can't be categorized into a few personalities types.
My parents would proudly display my third-grade art projects for anyone who entered the house. To my teenage self, it was mortifying.
To my adult self, I couldn't really care less. Things change. Also, my mom's been taking pottery lessons in her retirement, and I keep some of her "early works" around the house, and it achieves the desired result.
Maybe this case is different, I sure hope I'm underestimating the plaintiff/daughter. But for a teenager, any reminders of early childhood are pretty much the Worst Thing Ever. They'll grow out of it.
I'd take them down, then thar would be the last she ever heard of me. "You are no longer in our life, person - is that taking you seriously enough?"
If your response to everyone that gets mad at you for something you did is to shut them out of your life forever you're going to live a pretty lonely life. Doubly so if those people are your children. Shutting a child out of your life is an absolutely brutal thing to do. I have direct experience in my family of what this is like. Parents who do this for any reason other than self protection are assholes.
You are correct about not knowing the dynamics of the situation. but if a child of mine ever sued me for anything, it would be the last contact they'd ever have with me.
Based on your response that might be good thing. You sound unbalanced and I'm guessing you don't have children. You seriously believe that no matter how badly you behave the child should never be able to drag you in to court? Some parents are terrible, abusive, mean, or manipulative. Some parents steal from their children or beat them or abuse them both physically and psychologically. There is a reason emancipated minors are a thing. If an adult (she is 18) child actually gets to the point where you behavior has made them think that the only means to get you to behave nicely is to sue you then the problem is most likely YOU. What exactly do the parents lose by taking the pictures down? Nothing. They are keeping them up just out of spite and/or disrespect for self indulgent reasons. I'm having trouble seeing any scenario where the parents are the good guys here.
If I posted a picture of someone and they asked me to take it down I see no reason to be a jerk about it and ignore the request. Granted going to court about it is pretty extreme but it's entirely conceivable that it is justified (or possibly not). Frankly I wouldn't want all my childhood pictures being posted publicly either so I get where the daughter is coming from. I don't have a facebook account for this very reason among others. Some people value their privacy and don't want everyone in the world to see every detail of their lives. Reasonable people will honor this point of view so long as it causes no harm and none could possibly come from taking down the pictures..
Nope. I live in the US. You guys are nuts about this sort of stuff.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Don't worry, I think you're an asshole too! The difference is that I am right and you are completely wrong.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The obvious answer is to ignore it. Non-mentally-ill adults do not experience "emotional distress" over the fact that people may see some of their baby pictures.
Why should she ignore it? That will not solve her problem. They are pictures of her, not pictures of you and they affect her. There can be real consequences to having even seemingly innocent information made public. Maybe you don't care but she's entitled to a different opinion. I don't like having pictures of me posted without my consent either. It's one of the reasons I don't participate in facebook. The parents are being very disrespectful and possibly harmful. It costs them nothing to take the pictures down and respect her harmless request for privacy. Mentally ill people are those who lack empathy for others and the parents are the ones showing a distinct lack of it here.
I can get on board with the notion that suing might be overkill here but there is no objective reason for the parents to persist their behavior. I very much doubt they would like naked pictures of themselves posted publicly. The fact that she is a child in the pictures makes them arguably child porn if she really wants to play hardball over it. Just because someone is your parent doesn't make any and all behavior towards their child acceptable.
where they will use every metric you can imagine and quite a few you probably can't to track this girl the rest of her natural life.
Also, don't they claim ownership of everything posted? Maybe she should be telling Facebook to take them down and if they don't comply sue them instead.
Facebook has dark profiles on people who don't have accounts. They do facial recognition and other shit to harvest as much data as absolutely possible. Embarrassing or not her parents have murdered her privacy for life. Damage is probably already done.
Rules tend to be different when it's non sexualized photos of an infant. That's likely the case here.
What is "sexual" is very much dependent on the viewer. Some people have fetishes I could not begin to imagine being arousing but nevertheless they are real. Just because the parents are too dense to grasp that fact doesn't make it less true. Do you really want somebody with tendencies towards child molestation pleasuring themselves over your child's pictures? There are people who do that you know. It's not hard to make an argument that any picture of a naked child could be considered child porn. And it is entirely reasonable to not want such pictures of oneself posted for all the world to see for that reason alone.
There is no reason for the parents to not honor their child's reasonable request. The fact that the child had to get unreasonable about how she made her request speaks to how unreasonable the parents are being.
I really don't care. I didn't want the kids in the first place ... their mother is a wretch
Wow, what a shining example of human compassion you are. And/or you really can pick em.
And that stuff about 'deciding where you go to a retirement home' doesn't matter if you have your documentation properly written.
... and you have the money to pay for it. It's when things don't go as planned and you need your kids' financial help that you're totally at their mercy. I've known people who were well enough off at retirement discover this. Well, here's hoping the next 15 years' markets aren't the trainwreck the past 15 years' were.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's much more likely the daughter is a hypersensitive, unsympathetic, thoughtless, self-absorbed twit.
Disagree. I think we have some parents who lack empathy, are emotionally abusive and lack common courtesy. If someone posted naked pictures of me at any age publicly I'd be entirely within my rights to be pissed off at that asshole. Whether they see it as a problem or not is irrelevant. Now I'm sure there is more at play here than this one little incident but based on the facts at hand I have to say the parents are WAY out of line here.
Disclaimer: I have a teenage daughter.
And do you go out of your way to embarrass her or cause her emotional distress? If she made a harmess request of you would you tell her to get bent? Do you care so little for her feelings?
When everyone you see is an asshole: look in the mirror.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So now it's compassion to give money and harbor to ungrateful losers who don't realize that THEY have requirements and responsibilities too? So it's just dad that has to do all the fucking work? WTF is wrong with your generation? That kind of attitude was considered a mental disorder 25 years ago.
I don't have a cent invested in anything that isn't real estate - because I don't like play money investments. Land doesn't go anywhere.
My daughters aren't going to make much money, sadly. Maybe they'll marry up, but I doubt it. Menial labor is their fate.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Except in this context, it's an Austrian nexus, not the USA. And in the USA, there are plentiful prudes and people to test the prudes at all quadrants.
This said, there are untold numbers of child molesters, and the number of registered sex offenders climbs every year.
Embarrassing your daughter in such a way is heinous, in my mind, and damaged mind that refused to take them down has real problems. Does this woman own her privacy, her nudity, and embodiment of self, or can her parents haul out trash and wave it for control or demented entertainment?
Whatever is ruled has no effect legally in the USA. But many women will be watching the outcome, and for good reason.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
[sigh] My point was that *I* live in the USA. If *I* posted pics of my 4-year-old niece naked, then *I* would be in trouble in the USA. Because nuts.
FWIW, I have no desire or plan to post pics of my niece naked, I see no reason to. I just don't regard it with the same level of apparent disgust that Anonymous Coward "Pics or it didn't happen" 2 posts up seems to.
I don't have a horse in the race here - I don't care what the parents or the child do in this particular case, I think they're both being stupid, but whatever.
Physicists get Hadrons!
It depends on the jurisdiction you're in, and how much the local prosecutors want to get elected. Baby pics are one thing, a little older pics, and one gets into the realm of ostensible prurient interests.
There are indeed infant and child sex abusers out there. But more important is the dignity of a young person, or at least the perceived dignity in *her* mind.
Dignity is important, and women's dignities are battered ferociously in many cultures. Where is the line drawn? Perhaps an Austrian judge will draw the first line.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
That depends entirely on what manner of person the kid is. I have a neighbor who has a daughter who is an absolute asshole to her; constantly wanting money for things, constantly berating her. The woman would definitely be better off without the daughter.
Personally I think you've already made the assumption that naked infant pictures are in some way embarrassing. To my mind, they're not. To most Europeans, they're not.
It seems I'm really struggling to say this sufficiently clearly: The difference between a photo of a naked 4 year-old and a clothed 4-year old to me is the clothes, that's it. I really don't care whether the kid has clothes on or not, it makes absolutely no difference to the photo, and the first comment that would come to mind would be something like "wasn't that Summer of '73" or "Hey look at the size of that sand-castle you were building", or something equally irrelevant to the clothing situation.
If someone wants to get all upset over the photos, then fine. It's a bit weird to make an issue out of it, but whatever. Similarly, if the parents don't want to take the photos down, that's also a bit weird, it seems like basic courtesy ought to rule here. As I said, I don't really care; I think it's a matter for the family to handle, and apparently they think it's a matter for the courts to handle. Fair enough. I don't really see why it's news, either.
Physicists get Hadrons!
He shouldn't post anything that hurts his daughter.
I believe that you don't care. And, Space cowboy, unless your gender is mistaken, you're taking it from a male point of view, and there are more than just an American male's point of view as regards exposing a youth's naked pictures to the Internet. I'm not the woman in the pics, and she has the nexus of being injured by this, not me.
Some people do care, and are embarrassed for her, or by contrast, her parents. There are lots of questions, and no answers, until a judge makes one. I find it fascinating and interesting. Personally, I hope she wins. Some families are really dysfunctional, and parents clueless, leading to this litigation.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
One thing to consider: the older you get, the more you're going to want your kids to contact you, and the less they'll need for you. Don't burn those bridges.
At some level of batshit crazy and/or abusive it's not worth it even for family. Most people will stretch further for their flesh and blood than they'd ever do with any friend or even partner, they'd dump a crazy ex but it takes a whole lot more to walk away from family. Those that do often have really good reason, or they're the crazy ones and have really bad reasons. Either way not burning the bridges is not a solution, you also need to find a way to make living with it reasonable.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Do remember that this was the insight of a 7 year old child and not said meanly but surprisingly full of wisdom for a someone that age. Hopefully I've got a few decades left and if I raised him well he'll do as good by me as I've tried to do by him without needing to pull bottom feeding lawyers into it. That some feel the need to do so is saddening.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I use a picture of myself aged 2 as a forum portrait. I post naked pictures of myself to women I know. They're in public, I don't mind.
Holy shit this thread is full of people who can't tell the difference between what should remain private and posting shit for all the world to see.
As a photographer I reserve the right to do whatever the fuck I like with photographs I take, subject to the law. If that means walking down the street handing out prints of you naked at two, that's my choice, not yours. You should've fucking put some clothes on.
Condoms prevent children who later sue their parents.
I thought cutting off at 95 meant making 1995 the lower end of the year range, or the earliest a millennial could have been born, not higher
If you want to live in a world where parents are not allowed to have responsibility for their children but it is abdicated to the government this is the sort of thing you get.
Puhlease don't act surprised when you loose all of your free speech rights if you don't protect everyone else's.
Caution: Contents under pressure
> there are untold numbers of child molesters
Actually the evidence suggests this is much rarer than generally believe and almost all of them target members of their own family. Stranger danger is almost entirely a myth.
>and the number of registered sex offenders climbs every year.
Except that there are two problems with your analysis. Firstly - nobody ever gets removed, so the list will always grow even as people die out. Secondly it lists anybody who was ever convicted of any sex-related offence. There are lots of girls on it who got there because they sexted their boyfriend at age 15 which some trumped up prosecutor turned into 'distributing child pornography' . There are tons of people on there who got a public lewdness or indecent exposure conviction for getting caught pissing on a tree one night after too many beers. Quite a few people got on there on a statutory rape charge for having consensual sex with their childhood sweetheart - often sex that was legal the week before (think 17 year old guy, 16 year old girl - they are covered by a Romeo and Juliet law, he has his birthday and turns 18...suddenly he's a "rapist"). A huge number of people on that list are no threat to society at all in fact - and since there's no appeals process there is no way to get off it. Now, of course, a lot of sex offenders are violent asaulters, rapists, date rapists etc. I'm not trying to minimize their crimes - but the wide range of things that can get you put on the list *does* minimise their crimes and certainly makes the sex offender registry useless for actually assessing whether a person is a threat. Too many people on that registry are harmless, and that means you either assume they all are - or you do what most people do an assume they are all as bad as the worst ones. Either way - it ends up being a travesty of justice and the registry does not support your point at all, it's growth rate even less so.
>Embarrassing your daughter in such a way is heinous, in my mind,
Now this, you are right about, and you don't need the previous hyperbole to be right about it.
>Does this woman own her privacy, her nudity, and embodiment of self
She damn well ought to yes. What makes the case legally tricky is that when the photos were taken she was a minor and the photographer was also her legal guardian - who had the right to give consent for them to be taken and published on her behalf. The question legally, is whether as an adult now, she can revoke the consent they gave when she was a minor. That's something a judge will rule on. My gut feel is she should be able to but that gets very tricky legally. What about child models who, as adults, want the ads their baby pix were in pulled ? Would they be able to do revoke the consent papers their parents signed 20 years ago ?
>Whatever is ruled has no effect legally in the USA
Actually it does - rulings set precedent, which has the power of law until and unless a law is passed. That's one form of how common-law works.
>But many women will be watching the outcome, and for good reason.
While I can see that, I'm not sure it's the right case to be watching. There are plenty of real problems with pictures, especially nude ones, published without consent. Revenge-porn cases and the like - which are clear violations of a person's bodily integrity. That's why real photographers have model release contracts - and don't publish photos without proof of consent. But this one is difficult because there *was* consent. As a minor her parents had the right to consent on her behalf. As I said above - the legal test here is whether she, as an adult, can revoke consent her parents gave (in this case to themselves but that is immaterial) when she was a minor ? I'm pretty sure *that* is legally untested as an idea. Generally though you can't worm your way out of a contract your parents signed on your behalf as a minor when you're an adult by claiming you don't consent to the contract. If that changes - then nobody will want to sign any cont
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Honestly, I sincerely doubt a judge will ever rule on this. As I pointed out above - this case raises serious issues around contract law as it pertains to minors and legal guardians. That's a problem a smart judge would really try to avoid - because there is serious risk for the judge's career. Rule in her favour - you can expect a slew of cases using it as precedent for much less sympathetic causes - which in turn will lead to years of appeals and probably his ruling being struck down along the way by higher courts. No judge likes that. If he rules against her - he risk a major public outcry - notably from women's rights groups and politicians, which is also something no smart judge wants.
So I think the judge is likely to do all in his/her power to get them to settle the case - and judges have quite a bit of power to try and encourage settlements (with good reason). Indeed a judge can actually ORDER the claimants to settle the case and refuse to issue a ruling when the judge believes a settlement is the best outcome and reasonably possible - and if I were the judge (note - not a judge or a lawyer) that is exactly what I would do: order them to settle the case. That works out well - the only likely settlement involves the pictures being taken down - likely without any money changing hands.
That satisfies her wish to get them down and removes the risk that the judge will rule that, as her legal guardians at the time her parents had the right to consent on her behalf to publication and she cannot retroactively remove consent. It spares her parents an expensive payout and further public embarassment over being sued by their kid and it saves the judge from a very thorny issue.
If this actually goes to trial - expect her parents to receive a nice big anonymous donation to pay for their defence. You don't seriously expect Huggies(tm) to risk all the babies whose buttocks they printed on packaging for the past 50 years to start suing them for damages because as adults they don't consent do you ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
According to another newspaper (Berliner Morgenpost) this story might be a hoax. Suspeced reasons: There is a single source for this story (Austrian tabloid "Die ganze Woche"), the court cited in the article doesn't know anything about this case, her lawyer cited in this article doesn't know anything about this case, the newspaper that is the only source doesn't comment on inquiries at all and the people involved in the lawsuit can't be contacted directly because their identities are not known. All of this makes the chances this is made up pretty high.
Today's experiment
Parents, guardians can both proxy consent, but can't grant consent. This is the rationale behind statutory rape-- a child cannot give consent. And why sex with animals is immoral-- they can't give consent. And so forth.
I'm a parent & a guardian. My job is to protect interests, provide safety, look after health, and so forth. I neither receive compensation (financially) as a parent or from my ward. There are those that do. Do they have incumbent liability, as in the "Huggies" tort defence cited elsewhere in this thread? Nope.
This is a tort of a different colour, indeed.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Kids pictures from the parent without the adult childs consent is rather hindering.
Unless you have some psychotic belief that you were never a child, what exactly is the problem?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Except that you are now conflating two unrelated meanings of the word 'consent'. The meaning as used in sexual laws refers to consent to sexual behaviour, but I was using it's meaning in contract law which is very different. That there is some overlap in the area of statutory rape is an aside.
When a minor wants to enter a contract (technically - as simple as buying a candybar from the local tuckshop) their legal guardian (usually a parent) must consent to them signing that contract. That's a different usage of consent.
And then there is yet a third meaning of consent in contract law, which is of the 'I consent to you using something that belongs to me in a certain way' (possibly with an 'in return for' clause). This type of consent is present in everything from a rental contract to the 'release' contracts signed by reality TV contestent, rental contracts have them, copyright license contracts fall under them.
All three meanings are closely related but have subtle (yet important) differences and this involves both the latter two but NOT the former one. These are not sexual photos nor sexual behaviours - so sexual consent has nothing to do with it. The small overlap with bodily autonomy as a concept only comes from her being the subject of the photos. But a photographer wanting to publish a photo of another person needs would generally need their consent or a strong public interest case. The famous Vietnam Girl photo for example didn't need a model release because of it's extreme public interest value as a news photo.
In this case there is clearly no public interest at play. She's a private citizen, not involved in any event of major public significance (like a war) or running for a political office. So the photographer would need consent of the person or, if it's a minor, from their legal guardian. But this is consent of the third meaning. An allowance to use something that belongs to me.
But the photographer in this case IS the legal guardian and COULD give that consent to himself.
The father has a strong case that he hasn't broken any laws. I think he is acting immorally by not honoring her wishes and personally if a model asked me to stop publishing a photo, especially a nude, I would take it down - even though I have her signed consent at the time (I never shoot without it). But I'm not legally obligated to do so - I just feel a personal moral obligation.
I think the father here ought to feel the same - but that's not a legal argument.
Legally - he has a strong defence against the claim that the legal guardian of the subject of the photos consented to their publication and she cannot now as an adult revoke that contractual consent.
Who the judge will side with is hard to predict because she's clearly morally in the right but her father seems to be strongly in his legal rights. Hence my prediction that the judge will push very hard to get them to settle.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Here's a list of ranges that I was able to find for defining millennials. Scanning the lot of them it would look like the starting year is roughly 1980-1981 while the ending year is roughly considered around 1995-2000. The number of years covered by the range goes from 14-22 years. Suffice it to say, your definition of '85-'05 appears to about out of alignment.
1977-1994
1980-1994
1980-1995
1980-2000
1981-2000
1980-1996
1980-1996
1980-2000
1980-???? (This one basically hasn't decided when to cut off and is adding all new 18 year olds to the generation)
1982-2004
1983-2001
1983-2000
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Permission is permission.
Consent is consent.
Do people own rights at birth? Age of majority? The trust and guardianship of a minor varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I'm a guardian for an individual whose limitations prevent the capacity to thrive independently in the world. This individual is otherwise aware enough to have dignity.
Does a parent have the right to administer, guardian, or otherwise control a child or ward after 1) age of consent, 2) age of consent, or 3) age of consent, as you attempt to disambiguate consent in its somewhat artificially constructed sense?
We say that a child can't give consent for sex until an arbitrary year, which varies from 12-18 in the EU. A picture of a nude baby is not usually prurient to a "normal" individual, but is to a pedophile: porn and lascivious. When is such a photograph exposure in an indignant manner, as the subject loses the value of dignity and privacy?
In my mind, this is really about embarrassment and loss of dignity through the revelation of objects that are information that would under other terms, be of a private nature. Dignity and embarrassment start wars where people die, and borders change. It is a powerful value of self, an asset not to be trifled with. The embodiment of ideals has value, in certainty. Where does one draw the line of what is a loss of dignity, and the rest is: STFU?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The reason for the earlier cutoff is that people apply "millennials" to those who were growing up during the turn of the millennium, not born around it. Otherwise why would you include 1985 at the lower end (seems kind of far away) and why would it not be symmetrical?
It's like if we were defining a "hippie generation" -- you wouldn't say "people born while hippies were prevalent" you'd say "people born who became young adults while hippies were prevalent", meaning the people who grew into hippies.
For what it's worth I've usually seen millennials defined as born between 1980 and 1995.
All of which I agree with. None of which changes that the common legal standard for permission is "legally consented to publication' and that guardians can consent to such things for minors. The entire babyproducts industry bases all of it's marketing on photos of nude babies. All of which requires parental consent - since the models are too young to legally sign a contract.
And this case is effectively challenging the basis of all that (and a whole host of other things). That it happens to also touch on issues of bodily autonomy for a young adults complicates matters. Generally I believe the law should favour bodily autonomy concerns as a fundamental right - but this is a grey area.
I raise my (2 year old) child in a very liberated manner. She was born biologically female but if she were to identify as male when she's older - I would respect that. I teach her that there is nothing shameful about the human body and both her parents are often nude around her and vice versa. I also teach her about consent even now - that you cannot touch anybody's private parts unless you ask permission and they say yes, and nobody should be allowed to touch hers unless they asked and she said yes. The only exception I make to that is bathing her - when the occasional screaming fest is ignored because frankly a two year old is not capable of making the decision not to be clean (and the resulting health risks) on her own. Even then I always tell her it's time to get cleaned because even though the action is utterly not sexual in nature - it involves contact with private parts.
This is how I raise her. I believe in the idea that it's her body - and her wishes about it trumps everybody else's - including my own. So no, I'll never threaten her boyfriends or discourage her sexuality. I will make sure she knows about safe sex and then trust her to make the decisions about it that's right for her, I have no right to tell her what choices to make. Whether she wants to die a virgin or become a prostitute is HER choice, not mine.
So that's where my sympathies lie. Nonetheless there is a matter of what is legal versus what is moral here. And the father had legal consent - which a court is unlikely to mess with because, many years later, the former minor wants to revoke it.
I really do hope the judge pushes for a settlement - because there is no good ruling in this case. Rule against the parents - and you risk the careers of a thousand young performances, every kid who ever wanted to do sports, hell every driver's ed class ! Rule against the girl - and you place serious harm on the issue of bodily autonomy, privacy and dignity - a finding I would rather not have happen, no matter the other circumstances.
That said - the odds are really against her. Americans DO have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, they do not have a constitutional right to dignity as we here in South Africa and most European countries have. The court will, if it comes down to it, be forced to favour the constitutional right over the non-constitutional one.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The American adherence to common law is not quite as evolved as in the rest of the British-origined systems. Constitutional arguments are favoured. Something that happens in the EU/UK doesn't have direct bearing on outcomes, or so is my experience.
I hope they heal.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
> "The woman's father reportedly believes he's in the right to post the pictures because he took them."
Well, sounds like I have a trip to Austria to make. Specifically, to right outside this guy's window, to take some pictures of him while he's changing, which I will then have the right to post, because they were my pictures, right? Apparently, according to this guy's logic...
The parents treat them as property. Were you homeschooled or something, you dumb fuck?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."