Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook EU Privacy The Internet

Grandmother Ordered To Delete Facebook Photos Under GDPR (bbc.com) 101

Posted by BeauHD from the no-one-is-spared dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grandmother Ordered To Delete Facebook Photos Under GDPR More

Grandmother Ordered To Delete Facebook Photos Under GDPR

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday May 21, 2020 @06:25PM (#60088420) Homepage

    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.

    • Do we know that the parents aren't already doing that?

      • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

        by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Thursday May 21, 2020 @07:32PM (#60088586) Journal

        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)

          by Sertis ( 2789687 )
          It's a pretty straight forward reasonable rule, though this can be interesting since effectively there's shared privacy rights of any image you think you own which may include other people in the shot, so if you take that big family shot, or a picture on a vacation, technically anyone who thinks they were in that picture can issue a GDPR takedown. Are newspapers exempt from GDPR? Those often capture images without people in the pictures obtaining exclusive rights, and the distribution is much wider than f

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            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)

            by Teun ( 17872 )
            You are talking about photo's taken in a public place like a road where you have no expectancy of privacy anyway.
            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.

            • 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)

                by Cederic ( 9623 )

                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.

                • 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)

                    by Cederic ( 9623 )

                    Fair point, although also an interesting challenge in these times of public masking.

        • 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)

            by Kjella ( 173770 )

            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

          • 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)

          by WallyL ( 4154209 )
          Agreed. I understand the grandma's desire to share. I also understand the mother's desire to keep her children's images off the Internet. I think the court made a good decision here.
    • It doesn't sound like it had anything to do with that. For all you or I know the parents are posting pictures of the children on their Facebook and this was entirely over bad blood between family members. Yeah it's still stupid that it went to court and frankly I hope the lawyers soaked both sides over this because both parties really come off like little baskets of joy.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Parents are exploiting their kids for likes, some in hopes of monetizing the kids. Nothing wrong with that. Kids have spent most of human history as labor. There was a law, I think in New York, where if you killed a kid with your car you had to pay the expected earnings of that kid until he was 18 to the family.

      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.

    • 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]

    • 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)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Thursday May 21, 2020 @06:25PM (#60088422)
    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.

    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)

      by Joe2020 ( 6760092 )

      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

      • 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)

        by Vastad ( 1299101 )

        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.

        • 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)

      by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
      No the big story is that European courts have invented a supercopyright that controls what you can do with a certain pattern of pixels in some cases even those you created not just in business but certain personal situations as well and nobody cares because they're caught up in this weird modern belief that people should have absolute and unquestioned control over every single photon that bounces off their body.

      • Re:missing the main story (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday May 21, 2020 @07:24PM (#60088572)
        Such a super-copyright already existed. The crux of the matter can be resolved down to this single sentence:

        The mother of the children had asked several times for the pictures to be deleted.

        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)

          by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
          Posting photos on your personal FB is hardly equivalent to commercial publication. Do I have the right to go into your home where you entertain guests and start ripping up photos of your wedding anniversary where I happen to be in frame?
          • Mod parent up (more). The "going into house" was a great insight. I was going to say "whelp, until the kids were adults the parents had a right." Curious how this affects ANY pic in public that has people in it. Could I tell you to take down a pic in a restaurant that had me in it accidentally? Seems like it.
            • Mod grandparent down, there was no great insight at all.

              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.

            • 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)

                by jiriw ( 444695 )

                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

          • Most likely not if you're not the main subject of the photo and only were captured accidentally, especially when combined with the "legitimate interest" character of event photography and if the photos have never been published.

          • Re:missing the main story (Score:5, Insightful)

            by lgw ( 121541 ) on Thursday May 21, 2020 @08:37PM (#60088744) Journal

            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)

              by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
              I know what the wacky court says. I'm just pointing out what doesn't make sense.
              • Whether something is commercial or not is really not relevant for the GDPR anyway.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by lgw ( 121541 )

                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)

            by U0K ( 6195040 )
            I wondered about that myself as the information given from the article is quite vague.

            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)

            by Teun ( 17872 )
            Posting anything on Facebook is allowing them to publish it, or have you read in their lengthy agreement they will not monetise the data they collect?
            Besides, this was not a 'private' page but open to others.
        • If grandma had big portraits of her grandkids on the wall for everyone who comes in the house to see can mom force grandma to take them down? What if grandma runs a small business out of home and lots of people come through? If grandma shows wallet pics to everyone she meets can mom restrain that?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 )
        That's one interpretation of GDPR. Nice try. GDPR aims at ensuring that your privacy belongs to you, not to some big companies whose sole purpose is to make money out of it ruthlessly.
        • Who knew the kid's grandmother was actually the owner and CEO of MomCorp [fandom.com]!
          • The point is not the grandmother - the point is that when someone has their pictures posted on their behalf somewhere, they have the right to protect their own privacy and request the pictures to be removed.
            • We are talking about legally banning a grand mother showing pictures of her grand kids to her fb friends. Jesus Christ talk about insane level unintended consequences... thanks EU.
              • Reading TFS it appears that the problem was that the FaceBook page was public and not only available to her friends and it was this fact that lead to the decision by the court.

      • supercopyright

        You're thoroughly confused. This has nothing to do with copyright at all.

      • 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.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • 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)

          by tippen ( 704534 )

          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.

    • She's going to pick for grandma

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      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.

    • The grandmother will leave the pictures up and watch the parent's inheritance melt away.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sad_ ( 7868 )

      is there any family without problems?
      also, i've seen judge judy a few times and a lot of those cases are family issues.

  • 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)

      by lorinc ( 2470890 ) on Friday May 22, 2020 @12:59AM (#60089240) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by Megol ( 3135005 )

        You do understand creeps and criminals are using this law too? It's not all good.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lorinc ( 2470890 )

          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.

      • 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.

    • Found the company owner that doesn't like privacy for his customers :)

  • Dox (Score:3)

    by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Thursday May 21, 2020 @07:39PM (#60088600) Homepage
    At least EU has an anti-doxxing precedent now for children.

  • 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)

      by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      #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..

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close