Grandmother Ordered To Delete Facebook Photos Under GDPR (bbc.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: A woman must delete photographs of her grandchildren that she posted on Facebook and Pinterest without their parents' permission, a court in the Netherlands has ruled. It ended up in court after a falling-out between the woman and her daughter. The judge ruled the matter was within the scope of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). One expert said the ruling reflected the "position that the European Court has taken over many years." The case went to court after the woman refused to delete photographs of her grandchildren which she had posted on social media. The mother of the children had asked several times for the pictures to be deleted.
The GDPR does not apply to the "purely personal" or "household" processing of data. However, that exemption did not apply because posting photographs on social media made them available to a wider audience, the ruling said. "With Facebook, it cannot be ruled out that placed photos may be distributed and may end up in the hands of third parties," it said. The woman must remove the photos or pay a fine of 50 euros for every day that she fails to comply with the order, up to a maximum fine of 1,000 euros. If she posts more images of the children in the future, she will be fined an extra 50 euros a day.
The GDPR does not apply to the "purely personal" or "household" processing of data. However, that exemption did not apply because posting photographs on social media made them available to a wider audience, the ruling said. "With Facebook, it cannot be ruled out that placed photos may be distributed and may end up in the hands of third parties," it said. The woman must remove the photos or pay a fine of 50 euros for every day that she fails to comply with the order, up to a maximum fine of 1,000 euros. If she posts more images of the children in the future, she will be fined an extra 50 euros a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Be sure and ask for a refund.
Re: (Score:2)
1000 euros is 1100 USD. Just pay a fine.
I'm curious if the kids, once they turn 18, could then sue if the images were still up.
Re: (Score:1)
I have family members whose kids have literally lived as images on Facebook.
I suspect eventually there will be estranged children who do not appreciate that their parents totally fingerprinted them on social media.
Generationnal effect on social network. (Score:2)
I have family members whose kids have literally lived as images on Facebook.
Hey! What is this "Fece Book" you keep speaking about?
I've kept search the whole TikTok but didn't find anything about it.
Is it a new challenge? Like taking a dump above some book or something?
--
More seriously, by the time the kids turn 18, they probably won't give a damn about what Facebook.
Just like you don't give much damn about the silver gelatine and instant film that your grandparents put you on back when you were a kid.
---
Eons ago, Ungh was scandalised by Onkr due to all the cave paintings their gran
Re: (Score:1)
how much do anonymous cowards make overthere ? i heard these things before like "but its 'only 100 dollar'
it used to be amusing but its not anymore
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Good on the parents not wanting Facebook to have their kid's life history since before they're old enough to type.
Stupid that it had to go to court, but now there's precedent at least.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: Good (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but even if they were - I still support the ruling.
My children are adults now and have a social media presence. That's fine because it's their choice. But while they were growing up, their mother and I had a policy of not allowing pictures of them to be posted on the Internet by relatives. All we asked for was that they be given a chance to control how much of their information was shared with the public. The way we viewed it, the information rightfully belongs to them and until they were old enough to choose, we were the custodians charged with keeping it in trust. Not knowing how they would feel later, we made the safe decision.
I'm not usually a supporter of the European Union, but I'm glad that they ruled the way they did. Like the GP pointed out, now there is a legal precedent. Ultimately, it is up to the parent to make the choice at the bequest of the children. They will not always make a choice that I agree with, but at least the law gives them the ability to protect the information should they so choose.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do any family photo's need to be online publicly? The Vietnam photo can certainly be said to be newsworthy which can be an exception to the rule. There are already 'in the public interest' rules about news and information in the UK that could easily be extended or maybe already cover such things.
Re: (Score:2)
But even here privacy is infringed on once names are placed with the faces.
There are countries where faces (of minors) are blurred.
Also, like in the instance of the Napalm girl the function of the press gives it certain privileges when the public good is involved.
One reason Twitter/ Facebook etc. are not press because they would likely ban said picture for nudity.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about photo's taken in a public place like a road where you have no expectancy of privacy anyway.
Here in Germany, I still retain the right to my picture even if taken in a public place. So before somebody publishes such a picture or posts it online they have to get my permission. Many people don't do that, of course, but if I found out I could sue.
Note that this doesn't apply to pictures where I'm only in the background and that there are exemptions for the press, public events and stuff like that.
Now, I don't know about the laws in other European countries, but I guess they are closer to the German la
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK it's legal to take photographs of people in public and to publish those photographs.
Commercial exploitation is more complicated but just posting onto Facebook? Well, you should've hidden your face in public.
I've had the police called on me for taking photographs while walking down the street. I just laughed, the police didn't even bother to turn up.
Covering face (Score:2)
Well, you should've hidden your face in public.
In some european countries, it's illegal to cover your face in public, (with some exception with religious reasons, such as celebrating carnival, or some religiong that require a veil).
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, although also an interesting challenge in these times of public masking.
Re: Good (Score:3)
hi, just two points:
1) precedent is mostly irrelevant in most EU law systems.
2) this was pretty much a loss from the start, the GDPR and its local interpretation the AVG, are quite clear on pictures of persons being within the scope it applies to. Minors are especially protected and you need permission of the parents to even take pictures, let alone store them or even worse, publish them.
3) public figures are not protected for any activities they undertake in an official capacity. But a picture of the pres
Re: (Score:2)
1) precedent is mostly irrelevant in most EU law systems.
This is both true and false. In the US system precedent creates pockets of settled law for the lower courts within its jurisdiction, meaning a lot of effort goes into arguing whether or not it applies. You still have to argue the facts, but the interpretation of the law can only be changed on appeal to the same court or higher. Getting overturned for not applying precedent correctly and creating precedents with unintended consequences can be very bad for a judge's career.
In most European legal systems they
Re: (Score:2)
hi, just two points:
1) precedent is mostly irrelevant in most EU law systems.
2) this was pretty much a loss from the start, the GDPR and its local interpretation the AVG, are quite clear on pictures of persons being within the scope it applies to. Minors are especially protected and you need permission of the parents to even take pictures, let alone store them or even worse, publish them.
3) public figures are not protected for any activities they undertake in an official capacity. But a picture of the president visiting his or her mistress would be up for discussion as this would be a private matter. And the public interest is not the same as the interest of the public. However, it's quite tough to get any journalists to take down their materials as they too are protected. So that would be an interesting case, likely decided on the merits of the individual case.
No precedent is still very useful under EU laws. Precedents can't change the law or make new law like they can in common law system, but they still set guidelines for how verdicts will fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But parents should have the right not to exploit their kids, just like they have the right to send them to school instead of ‘homeschooling’ them as webcam models.
Common Law vs Civil Law (Score:2)
The way I understand Common Law vs Civil Law practices is that precedent weighs less under the latter. Thus, this would not set legal precedent in the Netherlands, and presumably nor in the EU.
https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/bl... [wustl.edu]
Re: Common Law vs Civil Law (Score:2)
That is correct. Precedent doesn't matter in most of the EU. But this case was very clear cut from the start, the grandparent never had a chance of winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Good on the parents not wanting Facebook to have their kid's life history since before they're old enough to type.
Don't be silly. This has nothing at all to do with Facebook. It's a family falling out matter, nothing more.
missing the main story (Score:5, Insightful)
They're obviously within their rights but ooouuuuuf. Either those parents are a real piece of work or grandma is one serious monster. Could be both if it runs in the family.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The big story here is what's going on with that family. Think about the multiple levels of disfunction that must be going on if the parents are taking it all the way up to the frikkin supreme court just to make sure that grandma can't post kid pics. ...
Do think about the grandmother, too, who didn't want to take the pictures down for the sake of her daughter, but that she had to put the grand children up for display regardlessly. This tells me that the grandmother is a wicked old lady who did this for her own gain, possibly to show off to some other women that she's now got grand children. Frankly, chances are that when the grandma isn't going to care for what her daughter wants (who asked her several times to take the pictures down) then she isn't going
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, chances are that when the grandma isn't going to care for what her daughter wants (who asked her several times to take the pictures down) then she isn't going to care for what's best for the grand children either.
Like my ex's mom, this old bag clearly takes the "o" out of "count."
Re: (Score:2)
We have next to zero information about any of the adults involved, so any speculation is shaky, but the grandmother's behaviour could believably be framed as a power-play tactic by someone with traits of narcissistic personality disorder.
Re: (Score:2)
We have next to zero information about any of the adults involved, so any speculation is shaky...
We don't need to have every detail and we may never have them all. But with a bit of luck will you remember how your parents treated you. And when they loved you will they have listened to you and cared.
So when the daughter asks her mother, but the mother ignores her repeatedly, then this is an important piece of information. Sure, one can construct a complex and complicated relationship as the background for this family, but such a background would only distract from the most obvious fact, the "smoking gun
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:missing the main story (Score:5, Insightful)
That's it. The parent(s) of the child controls the publicity rights of the child [wikipedia.org] (while they are children). You have exclusive control over how your image is distributed and used, and parents have exclusive control over how their children's image is distributed and used. If they don't want photos of their children distributed, then you must respect their wishes. Doesn't matter if you're a TV studio, a private photographer, or a grandmother. That's why any photographer intending to distribute images first gets a signed model release [wikipedia.org], and why reality TV shows regularly blur out the faces of people on the street (they weren't able to get model releases from those people).
There's an exception for the press during newsworthy events. If the child were photographed fleeing, say, an alien invasion, the press doesn't have to blur out the child's face from the photo at the parent's request. It's a photo documenting a newsworthy event, so the right of the public to know the news overrides the parents' right to control their child's image. So the right isn't absolute. But I don't see anything in this case which says the grandmother should have a legal right to countermand the parents' wishes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: missing the main story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Could I tell you to take down a pic in a restaurant that had me in it accidentally? Seems like it.
You could tell him anything, but in this case he'd most likely be in the clear even if he declined. Unless the photo were *really* embarrassing or something like that.
Re: missing the main story (Score:2)
Yes, you could. That's very clear. If you photograph people you need to either make them unidentifiable, or obtain consent. If you don't they have every right under the GDPR to demand that you cease publication. And for protected groups or pictures that show symbols that would allow people to identify protected categories such as ethnicity, political, religious or sexual orientation, that would be even more stringently enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
Tread lightly here. The AVG (Dutch GDPR) says you need consent if you're depicting someone recognizably on the picture. If it's someone in the background, also if you can recognize such a person if you do a little squinting, you do not necessarily need consent. Same with photo's of groups of people of photos taken for certain reasons like journalism or artistic freedom. It's only when a person is clearly identifiable and you don't have a good reason to make that photo otherwise that you really need permissi
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. All in all I think it's a fairly balanced piece of legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:missing the main story (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting photos on your personal FB is hardly equivalent to commercial publication.
The court's position was effectively: it's commercial publication by Facebook. Granny can still show the pictures to anyone she likes in person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:missing the main story (Score:4, Informative)
Whether something is commercial or not is really not relevant for the GDPR anyway.
Actually, it is.
GDPR makes an exception for a "purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it would better have been Facebook that needed to be told to take it down, since they're the one's actually publishing. And that makes sense to me: no using someone's likeness for profit without permission. That's nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
So some questions started to come up.
If this thing went to court and the plaintiff won, then the plaintiff must have had evidence. How were they able to obtain that evidence if the photos were 'private'?
So why wouldn't the mother just lie and say she had deleted the photos? If no one else can see them, who's going to know? And in a court of law (at least in the more civilized countries) you can't just ask the defendant
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, this was not a 'private' page but open to others.
Re: missing the main story (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: missing the main story (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
supercopyright
You're thoroughly confused. This has nothing to do with copyright at all.
Re: (Score:2)
that European courts have invented a supercopyright
No they haven't. They interpreted and applied existing laws on the matter. Nothing was invented. You may be surprised to learn that you can get in some serious legal shit in parts of Europe for taking photos of people in public places.
There's a reason Google blurs faces in street view and it's nothing to do with what the courts did this week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: missing the main story (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't own a photo of other people's children.
I do if I took the photograph.
Do not take pictures of other people's children, you sickos.
What's sick about photographing a child? What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't see a photograph of a child without it being sexual to you? It's just a photograph, of a child.
Shit, I've posted videos on Youtube of young girls dancing. They haven't been taken down because there's nothing wrong with them. The mother of the girls has thanked me for the videos. The girls share them with their friends.
I've posted photographs of toddlers, small children and young teens online
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want your picture taken or your children's picture taken, then you have to say that BEFORE the photo is taken.
So... If you take a photo of my while I'm asleep on the couch it's my bad for not telling you beforehand "don't take photos of me asleep on the couch"?
That's not how this works in a country with sane laws.
Who makes the photos owns the photos. But they still need the permission of people depicted in those photos if they want to publish or share these photos.
On the other hand me being in the photo doesn't mean that I can just take the photo and do with it as I please. you still retain the rights to the photo.
Re: (Score:2)
Who makes the photos owns the photos. But they still need the permission of people depicted in those photos if they want to publish or share these photos.
That depends very much on the laws of the jurisdiction. For example, in the USA, whether or not a photographer can "publish or share" a photo of someone depends on how it is being used. In general, no model release is required for non-commercial use.
Imagine the nursing home... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The big story here is what's going on with that family. Think about the multiple levels of disfunction that must be going on if the parents are taking it all the way up to the frikkin supreme court just to make sure that grandma can't post kid pics.
Considering this from other POV is just as valid.
Think about the how fxxking screwed up the grandma was that she WON'T STOP posting pictures of those kids without a supreme court order. In any normal family, a word from the parents would have been enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is there any family without problems?
also, i've seen judge judy a few times and a lot of those cases are family issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... old people who have no clue how social media really work, what the pitfalls are and that millions of people can access even the most private information you put there, who don't know how to use security and choose the name of their dog (whose picture is just on the other page along with its name) as the password to their kids naked pics...
Yeah, I can see pedos using that as a hunting ground. Now that YouTube stops 9 year olds from posting "morning routine" videos, where else can they still go w
Re: (Score:3)
Grandma might be a "moron", but this is overreaching with a new law.
If the GDPR applies in this sort of instance, does this mean you can require a friend or former partner to delete all information they hold about you (right to deletion)? It's a similar line of reasoning - it's not "household" or "purely personal" if its held by a third party and that third party does not have a lawful basis to refuse your request, so....
What this ruling basically means is that the "promise" that the GDPR applied to busine
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't require you to delete all of the information you have about other people if they ask you to do so. It requires that you remove such information from public areas. You are able to keep the information for yourself as long as it's private. An ex can't make you delete photos of them from your computer. They can get you to remove posts on social media that involve them. But if you don't do that if they ask then it just shows that you're an ass and probably why they are your ex in the first place.
As a
Re:Grandma is a moron (Score:5, Informative)
No, under the GDPR, the right to erasure is total unless the data processor has a lawful basis to refuse - see Article 17 of the GDPR [gdpr-info.eu], its significantly wider in scope than just search engines (that was the original right to be forgotten law, this is the one which surpassed it) and covers *any* data processor.
This ruling is basing its power on the fact that the grandmother is a data controller and the data subjects (or their lawful guardians) have withdrawn consent (or clarified no consent existed) and thus the data processor must cease their processing. Which means this ruling is saying that private individuals who hold pictures or any other data about another person can now be classed as a data controller and thus fall under the GDPR, with all the obligations that entails - including the right to erasure.
Re: (Score:3)
No, under the GDPR, the right to erasure is total unless the data processor has a lawful basis to refuse - see Article 17 of the GDPR [gdpr-info.eu],
The right to erasure in that article is only complete as far as the scope of the law reaches. In the preamble:
(18) This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity. Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities. However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal... [europa.eu] (page 3)
So, the most interesting part is that grandma was being considered legally responsible, rather than Facebook, since it is explicitly mentioned. I looked up the ruling (https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2020:2521 ) and below 4.5, it says that it isn't counted as household because the photos may be accessible by 3rd parties. Th
Re: Grandma is a moron (Score:1)
Re: Grandma is a moron (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Consent isn't permanent under the GDPR, it can be withdrawn - so your post is pointless.
Re: Grandma is a moron (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The consent to take a picture and keep it cannot be revoked. What you can do is disallow the distribution and public presentation, something that you could already do in most European countries unless you had a written contract with the person taking the photo or are a celebrity or someone else who is "of public interest". The GDPR is basically the "on the internet" extension of this already existing right.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't apply like that.
The GDPR doesn't apply to household processing of data, do you can't make your former friends delete everything about you. The key was publishing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy protection does not mean protecting your privacy from being abused by corporations, it means protecting it from abuse by anyone. Because else, where do you draw the line? Am I your "friend" because I declare myself to be one, when I post those pictures I took of you at the latest swinger party?
Is that mother abusing a law to get her way? Most likely. Should we change it to disallow it? Not really, because we would also take away the ability of people to protect their privacy from other, more appropr
Re: (Score:2)
No this is the logical interpretation of the law.
Anyway I though most people on Slashdot despised having their image published by other people on Facebook so would support the right to refuse that.
If you live in the EU and don't like this "law" (Score:2)
Just start issuing takedown notices for any companies, or political entities you don't like.
Thousands of GDPR requests per day if possible.
And vote in some better politicians. (yeah I know, glass houses and all that)
Re:If you live in the EU and don't like this "law" (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would you not like this law? It's a protection for us the people and our privacy against the greed of careless corporations and egoistic jerks.
GDPR is a blessing, I'm even surprised it was voted.
Its only downside is that it's not applied diligently and forcefully enough. I'd like to see more outrageous fines to non-respecting companies.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand creeps and criminals are using this law too? It's not all good.
Re: (Score:2)
As in? I'd like to see the "creeps and criminals" cases and how they compare to the benefit provided by the law.
If you are thinking of TFA, I'm not with you. Asking to remove photos of your children from the internet has to be guaranteed by the law, even if the photos are posted by the grandmother. Consent is always key.
Re: If you live in the EU and don't like this "law (Score:2)
Hear, hear. Its one of the strongest privacy laws on the planet, and a major headache for most of my clients. And rightly so because customer data was all over the place, often lost or abused, and not nearly as safe as it should be. The GDPR really has changed awareness on this topic and is slowly changing data security practices in most companies. Long overdue but quite good.
Re: If you live in the EU and don't like this "law (Score:2)
Found the company owner that doesn't like privacy for his customers :)
Dox (Score:3)
Grandma should use GDPR too (Score:2)
Hmm... One of the parents of the children got 50% of their DNA from grandma, she should assert that she does not grant her children the right to post pictures of themselves or their offspring. DNA donation was for non-commercial, non-procreation use only. Grandchildren have 25% of grandma's DNA, so they also owe grandma license fees before having the ability to post pictures of themselves. Let's trow in the fact that granda's donation of 50% of DNA for one of the parents, does not include a license to procr
Re: (Score:1)
#include post.h
Oh boy... think that would end well? Some crazy lawyer might think that's a good idea. Then everyone can post - NOTHING!
LOL. Grandfather should put those same pictures as part of his account. Then if the mother complains she'll be seen as a Bit..
Re: (Score:2)