Austrian Teenager Sues Parents For Posting Pictures From Her Childhood To Facebook
from the family-court dept
When we talk about young people filing lawsuits over “oversharing” of information and/or media on social media sites, schools are typically the targets of the suits. Inevitably, whether school personnel originally sought access to a student’s social media accounts for good intentions or simply to be a slut-shaming dick, the contents within the accounts are then weaponized for humiliation purposes.
But a recent lawsuit filed by an eighteen year old woman in Austria must have parents the world over wincing. At issue wasn’t some random person or school official attempting to shame the girl. It was just her parents’ sharing photos of a family member and now they face a lawsuit.
A 18-year-old woman from Carinthia is suing her parents for posting photos of her on Facebook without her consent. She claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting hundreds of photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood.
Legal expert Michael Rami was quoted by Austrian media as saying he believes she has a good chance of winning in court. The shared images include baby pictures of her having her nappy changed and later potty training pictures.
As a relatively new parent myself, I can assure you I’m paying attention. I haven’t shared anything so intimate as potty-training photos of my two boys on social media, mind you, but who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing? In the age of social media, I would think it’s only pictures of our children that out-mass pictures of our food among those we share with our followers and friends. Well-meaning as we all might be, what happens if courts ill-prepared to tackle these kinds of disputes suddenly render this family sharing tortious?
To be fair to the young lady in question, it appears that her parents turned something of a deaf ear to her non-litigious complaints.
Despite her requests, they have refused to delete the photos – prompting her to sue them. “I’m tired of not being taken seriously by my parents”, she said. Her father believes that since he took the photos he has the right to publish the images.
Because of our writing topics here at Techdirt, I’m basically thinking about intellectual property roughly all the time, but even I am having trouble imagining myself asserting this kind of defense as a father. I can imagine how frustrated the young lady must be at the callous attitude her parents have taken. But does it amount to something worthy of a lawsuit?
Well, Austrian law isn’t as strict on matters of privacy and social media as other nations. As the article notes, the French government has gone so far as to warn parents against sharing photos of their children for fear of the social repercussions for them later in life. There’s way too much hand-wringing in that kind of stance for my taste, but I can also see their point. I would hope, however, that the question comes down to delineating what qualifies as embarrassing content and what doesn’t, rather than relying on any individual’s interpretation. Otherwise, the courts could be a mess for a long time coming.
Filed Under: austria, children, parents, privacy, sharing, social media
Comments on “Austrian Teenager Sues Parents For Posting Pictures From Her Childhood To Facebook”
Photographs
I was threatened by a teacher for taking photographs of her students when they were on a bridge that was public property. I had the right, though no interest in taking their pictures. The best thing was that I was facing the opposite direction from her charges, the camera pointed around 180 degrees from them the entire time.
Enlighten me
What’s the (legal) difference between publishing pictures of your own child and similar pictures of your neighbor’s child (or any other child for that matter)?
And when does it become illegal?
Re: Enlighten me
uh you’re the legal guardian of your child, you get to make decisions for them.
Re: Re: Enlighten me
Considering the magnitudes of idiocy done in the name of parenting, I can understand the arguments that there might be limits.
Considering that US culture seems to hate promiscuous girls and boys who don’t fight (when outsized and outnumbered), I can understand an argument for a child’s privacy rights being violated by his or her parents.
I got lucky, but I know people who didn’t and there should be a vector for redress for them, and there isn’t.
Re: Enlighten me
In the US, if you took the picture from somewhere you are otherwise allowed to be, and you’re not peering in a window i.e. the child is plainly visible to anyone walking by, and the child is not engaged in or posed for anything sexual, then the picture you take is completely legal whether their your child or some one else’s and whether their even clothed or naked, and whether you get permission or not.
People tend to think that they have a right not to be photographed in public because they’ve seen video on the news of people with their faces blurred or heard of people having to sign consent forms, but news organizations just do this as a courtesy and to make it easier to get a bogus suit dismissed.
If this were the US, this kid’s suit would be particularly hopeless as here, until you’re 18, your parents have virtually all your rights for you. And if anyone’s permission was required before the parents could take pictures and post them on facebook, it would be the permission of the parents and never permission from the kid themselves.
Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
If the rule is that we can’t post any photo the subject thinks is embarrassing, then we can’t safely post any photos of people at all.
That’s an unreasonable standard.
If we must have a legal standard, it ought to be whether a reasonable person would think it’s embarrassing.
Few people think photos of naked babies are embarrassing (some think they’re obscene, but that’s not the same thing).
Babies don’t look much like the adults they’ll become. And babies have no choice about what happens to them.
Probably that’s why baby photos can’t be embarrassing. Nobody (except maybe the parents) can tell which adult the photos show, and even if one could, whatever is shown in the photo doesn’t reflect on the adult.
Teenagers, of course, can be embarrassed about anything. There’s no fixing that.
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
Of course, once you put a comment next to the photo telling everybody who it is… that kind of changes the entire game, no?
Re: Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
And? O look, you were adorably dork!
Any problems with that? She has the right to be upset for sure but sue? That’s going too far (even though she still has the right).
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
If we must have a legal standard, it ought to be whether a reasonable person would think it’s embarrassing.
You can’t have any kind of standard for forcing images to be taken offline because the subject is “embarrassed”. This would prevent any images used in news, cause all kinds of problems with posting pictures of wanted criminals, and allow anyone to silence speech (in the form of a picture) that they did not want.
Outside of child pornography, this is a horribly slippery slope. If you do not want embarrassing pictures of you posted online, stay inside when you are doing something embarrassing.
Re: Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
Agreed.
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
The reasonableness of people is still a moving line. I know some laws are based on that but it is unrealistic to assume it will always be interpreted correctly in every case.
I would suspect that there are bigger problems in that family than just the daughter having thin skin or a dad that seems to enjoy causing his daughter grief.
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
Who is to say that it then give you the right to decide for them? Naked kids? Maybe not appropriate. A kid getting hurt? Not appropriate. Its not that hard to hold back a bit. Besides, not everyone thinks your kid is as cute as you do.
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
You obviously haven’t had the experience of your parent showing an early-stage love interest your naked-infant-on-a-rug pictures.
This kind of embarrassment was big in the Polaroid era and probably not unheard of before that, but it’s still a thing, and arguably abusive.
What also interests me is that if teenage sexts (by their own consent) are regarded as child porn, why aren’t nude toddlers also regarded as such? Or are different groups arguing for different things?
I personally think the girl is an asshole because she went as far as to sue her parents for something that is trivial. Everybody will be embarrassed by their childhood photos at some point. Or not because for Christ sake, kids are little satan worshipers that have no shame (/joke mark). Seriously, why should anybody be even remotely embarrassed for something they were when kids is beyond me.
You may have been a total asshole but DON’T ever be embarrassed of yourself unless you haven’t evolved and continue being the same idiot (and this is valid for your previous adult self). And, really, kids are kids and will do dumb things. Laugh at your kiddie self and just move on.
Re: Re:
I’m thinking she hasn’t matured at all and is throwing another tantrum.
4chan'ing the world
This is just another example of why most people should not be allowed to have access to a computer, like the Oculus dick and many other examples people start to act like 4chan children IRL and it seems to be spreading.
Of course maybe we should all just RTFA
Since it looks like the whole thing is made up
https://www.thelocal.at/20160916/doubts-cast-over-alleged-facebook-court-case
Legally I’m on the parents side, morally I’m with the daughter. Your kid comes to you, says your actions are hurting them and asks you to stop, and your response is “I own the copyright deal with it”? Congratulations you have failed as a parent and a human being.
On the other hand...
On the other hand, there are plenty of horrible parents out there. Parents who are cruel, selfish, abusive and manipulative. Parents who view offspring as a possession, with which they can do anything. A parent who in the parents’ own words “brings a child into the world and can take it out also”.
There must be some limits on what a parent can do to a child, if not, then the child is not a human being. I for one reject the sub-human or non-human status of children. True children are not fully qualified adults (there are too many over-18 individuals who also fit this category), however, children are not things.
Apparently the young woman made an effort to resolve this privately and was dismissed. How hard she tried and the specifics of that dismissal we don’t know. And yes, the issue of posting pictures, that might be embarrassing in the future, is difficult. That difficulty must be faced, unless, children are to be demeaned to the status of things. If children are to be so demeaned, how soon will governments, corporations and political groups similarly demean adults? Given the malignant persuit of personal information by Google, Facebook, NSA, FSB et al, we are too terribly close to that already.
I’m sorry that this issue went to the courts. I’m sorry that there are those so coarse and selfish as to not see that some sort of balance must be made. None the less, I hope the courts do a credible job at establishing a balance that most of us can live with. It isn’t possible to please everybody. Unfortunate the highly sensitive and the highly coarse (profit seekers) will scream about their feelings and rights even if a good balance is achieved.
Fortunately, this is not in an American court where the money grubbers would automatically prevail.
If she felt embarrassed before...
Then how will she feel as the following will possibly happen:
1) Streisand effect: The lawsuit’s going to be drawing lots of attention to said embarrassing photos.
2) Said posts possibly be submitted as evidence: Not sure about Australian law, but in the US that would then make the photos public record, unless she somehow convinced a judge to seal the evidence.
One problem with the standard of "A reasonable person"
The problem with the standard “a reasonable person”, does anyone know a reasonable person? I haven’t met one yet.
In many countries in the EU, while the parents got the right to decide for their kids (their education, for example), they can’t take actions that go against their fundamental rights.
Citing Spanish Constitution as an example:
Artículo 18.
1. Se garantiza el derecho al honor, a la intimidad personal y familiar y a la propia imagen.
2. El domicilio es inviolable. Ninguna entrada o registro podrá hacerse en él sin consentimiento del titular o resolución judicial, salvo en caso de flagrante delito.
3. Se garantiza el secreto de las comunicaciones y, en especial, de las postales, telegráficas y telefónicas, salvo resolución judicial.
4. La ley limitará el uso de la informática para garantizar el honor y la intimidad personal y familiar de los ciudadanos y el pleno ejercicio de sus derechos.
And the “official” translation (sorry, it’s bad, I know):
Section 18
1. The right to honour, to personal and family privacy and to the own image is guaranteed.
2. The home is inviolable. No entry or search may be made without the consent of the householder or a legal warrant, except in ca ses of flagrante delicto.
3. Secrecy of communications is guaranteed, particularly regarding postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, except in the event of a court order.
4. The law shall restrict the use of data
processing in order to guarantee the honour
and personal and family privacy of citizens and
the full exercise of their rights.
The “right to your own image” is a fundamental right in Spain.
Of course, this is weighed against “freedom of speech” and “right of information” rights, so that right isn’t absolute in its nature.
And yet, parents don’t have absolute rights over their children. For example, you can’t name a kid with the name of your choice if it goes against his dignity as a person (For example, you can’t name your kid Adolf Hitler or Dumbass. The name is checked by a judge when you register his name.).
Also, there are a lot of international conventions and treaties that can, pretty much, be applied here, such as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959).
http://www.humanium.org/en/convention/text/
Not sure about Austrian Constitution. But I’d say that there are quite a few grounds for her case, particularly if we go to the plethora of Child’s Rights conventions out there.
To be honest, I’m with the daughter in this case.
Just because it’s your child, doesn’t mean that is your property or your belonging. It’s a person, not a thing, and he has rights too.
Your duty as a parent (and our duty as adults whenever possible), is to ensure that children grow up in the best possible environment for their development.
Posting embarrassing pictures of your kid from their childhood might sound like something trivial, but it can cause a lot of distress to a person, either during their childhood and as an adult.
And that’s aggravated by the fact that he has no control over it.
I’m not saying that just because something is embarrassing it should be taken offline, just that the actions of the persons involved should be weighed here. For example:
– A politician might find out embarrassing that you post some of his comments regarding an issue that make him look like an idiot, but that’s derived from his activity (he’s a public figure, plus it’s something he did by himself).
– Posting the private life of someone famous, is part of his job too (and of his activity). The money he makes pretty much “compensates” that part, plus we have to make clear that in many cases, that job is a decision he took as an adult.
– A child, particularly as a baby or as a kid, has no control (or complete control) over what he does and says (that’s why we don’t let kids vote, for example). In fact, we assume that their decisions aren’t fully reasoned (as they are growing).
See that even the press, that supposedly has the “freedom of information” and “right to information” rights weighing here, can’t just publish all what they want about children involved in a case.
Re: Re:
Answering to myself, a few comments about this issue:
http://www.internautas.org/html/9427.html
(it’s in Spanish, use Google Translate)
In short: in Spain she wouldn’t have to sue her parents, but report them to the authorities, with the possible involvement of the Public Prosecutor in the case.
Yeah, it can be serious shit in Spain if you aren’t careful.
Re: Re: Re:
Simple solution. Spaniards should stop reproducing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good to see a properly debated and reasoned argument being brought here.
It’s strange, I thought that in TD people valued their own privacy, particularly over security involved issues. At least, from the mess people make out of backdooring encryption, it looks like it.
Sure, backdooring encryption is “also” about security, but many people wouldn’t give that much of a fuck if privacy wasn’t involved.
I pretty much agree with that reasoning, and that’s why I agree with the daughter in this case.
Just because the person involved is “your parents” instead of “the Government” or “some shady company that wants to sell your data” (Facebook, for example) doesn’t mean that your privacy has been less violated.
In the end, someone has taken the decision for you about your privacy.
Now, Spaniards who value their privacy are the problem?
I’d say that the people who don’t give a fuck about privacy are the problem here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
whoooosh……
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If you missed my earlier sarcasm, then you probably don’t know what “whoosh” means.. that’s the sound of my sarcasm going right by you.
If they are pictures of her, and they were pictures taken in private, and are of a private nature, and they were taken before she had the ability to give consent… . then IMO she has every right to be upset, and utilize the legal system to get it to stop…. or she should. Spaniard or otherwise.
I was simply attempting to point out something I considered equally ridiculous in an effort to show how crazy the whole thing is, apparently unsuccessfully. Poe’s law Friday I guess…..
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Well, you should check this thread’s comments and see why I didn’t get your sarcasm.
We got people here that are criticizing the girl because she just wants her privacy.
Also, it’s not the first time that people from the US have criticized Spaniards for having a Constitution that at least, recognizes some protections to us that they aren’t afforded (even if our politicians ignore it, the same as the US one).
So yeah, your sarcasm isn’t so sarcastic, considering the context involved.
Court time should not be wasted on something as trivial as this. It’s just a freaking picture, get over it! To be so upset over a picture seems to me to indicate a deeper psychological problem. The girl needs mental help and seeking a legal remedy to her psychological problem only prolongs the time until she confronts the real issue. A legal system that enables this kind dysfunctional whining over a trivial matter is completely useless.
Re: Re:
You seem to be supposing well-meaning parents who care about their child’s welfare. There are plenty of parents who dislike their children, wish they didn’t have them, and this (posting photos which they may have taken deliberately to embarrass) would be a fine passive-aggressive way to shame and hurt them while claiming the little preciouses are just too sensitive and no harm is meant. Perhaps the problem in any given case may be the parents, not the child.
Re: Re: Re:
“Court time should not be wasted on something as trivial as privacy. It’s just a your freaking browsing history, get over it! To be so upset over others knowing the sites you have visited seems to me to indicate a deeper psychological problem. The nerds need mental help and seeking a legal remedy to their psychological problem only prolongs the time until she confronts the real issue. A legal system that enables this kind dysfunctional whining over a trivial matter is completely useless.”
Here, changed your text a bit to make it look better.
I bet that James Comey would use a similar argument to yours to justify what the NSA/FBI and other agencies did.
“It’s just your freaking computer, get over it! Security is more important that you not wanting to let others know the porn sites you’ve been visiting.
If you got nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear!”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Completely invalid comparison. You’re off by a mile!
Re: Re: Re:
Ah sorry, was answering him.
Still, answering about parents.
They don’t have to be bad parents, just careless parents that think that the internet is some sort of virtual world that won’t affect your real lives.
That mentality should have disappeared by now, but people still see the internet like that.
Of course, we forget that kids are cruel creatures. That is, they will use whatever they get their hands on to tease, prank or bully other kids.
And that includes stuff you did as a kid (imagine, the pics of you doing stupid games as a kid) and use it as a weapon against you.
And they don’t have to dislike you or anything: if it’s fun, it’s a good thing to do.
We forget that kids are quite sensible to those things. A stupid nickname can make your school life a hell (and be the only cause of why others are bullying you), so I don’t want to think what some videos of your 3 yo self can suppose to your school life.
And well, as an adult, you just might not want that stuff being posted online.
You know, because it’s your fucking private life that your parents decided to share without your consent, and something that you want to keep for yourself.
Following the previous argument “I’m not sure if I have something to hide or not, but I’m fucking sure that I want to decide who I share it with”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And some people who aren’t children don’t like having their pictures taken, let alone posted. It doesn’t have to be anything embarrassing at all.
I’m not thinking legalities here, but it would be nice if we could balance things like privacy and free speech by people following the strange concept of “Don’t be a dick.”
State laws
There are state laws on this. For example in Virginia:
§ 18.2-386.1. Unlawful creation of image of another; penalty.
§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.
This applies to nursing homes and day care centers also.
I have seen where a responsible party for a nursing home resident has to authorize camera surveillance for a resident who can’t give consent.
However, I haven’t been able to find information on parents granting or withholding written permission for camera surveillance of diapering and potty areas in day care centers, or any legal issues relating to that.
I know some centers don’t obtain written consent from the parents, are not given written notices, and I know that some licensing inspectors do not inspect for written consent, and are not aware that creating images of children being diapered or pottying is illegal without written consent of the parent.
This problem needs to be addressed. These images are disseminated to the center’s office, and also to corporate. The security on this is not known.
Dissemination of these images with wrong intent is definitely illegal, in my opinion.
Fishy Story
Austrian here.
This story circulated in virtually every media outlet here last week. The funny thing is, just one German site (link in German) fact-checked it and could neither get a confirmation from the responsible court nor from the law firm that was mentioned in the original source. In fact, both sides denied any knowledge of such a case.
I’d treat this story with a large grain of salt until someone is able to verify it.
Re: Fishy Story
It does seem rather thin and suspicious. It’s a good point, and another person was also wise enough to mention it earlier as well. However, it is a perfectly good concept to discuss whether or not the story is real, particularly since the comments mostly address the abstracts of it.
Re: Fishy Story
Even if it’s fishy and happened or not, it wouldn’t be that strange if it happened; and it’s something up to debate (that is, kids got rights too, apart from what their parents want to give them).
Ok, it would be. Sensible parents would remove those pictures or videos if their kids told them to do so.
Well, actually, sensible parents wouldn’t post them.
– Daddy, mommy, I don’t want photos of me on privacy nightmare Facebook. Please, remove them!
– Copyright. Deal with it!
Assuming the story is real, there isn’t enough info for me to form an opinion, the girl could be exagerating, the parent’s could be thinking of showing their cute baby gaughter to the world.
Btw if the girl were to win wtf would happen to diaper commercials on austria? Or must it exclude real babys already
Forgot to mention I have no children and live in a small and far away town so I don’t think I will ever have to face the temptation of showing my own kid’s in tv even if I had; but I can also undertand why people would want to brag about that.
Even if the parent’s decide not to tell, what would happen if the kid finds out afterwars
Well, perhaps posting it where only actual friends and family can see it, rather than the 1000’s of so-called ‘friends’ and followers people have on Facepalm, twatter, or whatever this decades flavour is, can see?
If someone isn’t a close enough friend or relative that you would have over for ‘a cup of tea’ and be allowed to flick through the coffee table family photo album, then perhaps they shouldn’t be on a distribution list for photos of your children?
While embarrassing, I doubt that if the photos were only visible to a few dozen people, grandparents, uncles/aunties, close cousins, family friends, etc., that the now grown-up child would be too terribly upset about them. I mean, the chances are that those people have similarly embarrassing photos of themselves or their kids that can be seen – glass houses….
Photos of my child
I am the legal guardian of my minor child. As such I may (and in many cases must) exercise his legal rights. I may (and in many cases must) approve or consent to the waiver of his rights. This should include the right of privacy as noted in the daughter’s lawsuit.
Ugly baby
She must have been an ugly baby.
Child Photos...
I post my own pictures of my younger self to remind me of what an asshole I was.
No, it should come down to there simply being no right to sue on these facts (at least under American Law. I know little of Austrian law). These were pictures taken by the poster/publisher of the pictures in a place where the photography was entitled to take photographs. The photographs have not been falsified so there can be no defamation.
There are a few other privacy related claims that could come up, but they require more than the pictures being subjectively embarrassing. They would require something like showing the subject in a “false light” or implying that the subject endorses a particular product or something else which makes these more than a case of innocent childhood pictures the subject now finds mildly embarrassing.