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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: austria, children, parents, privacy, sharing, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Photographs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enlighten me
And when does it become illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enlighten me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Enlighten me
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enlighten me
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4chan'ing the world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course maybe we should all just RTFA
https://www.thelocal.at/20160916/doubts-cast-over-alleged-facebook-court-case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If she felt embarrassed before...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One problem with the standard of "A reasonable person"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State laws
§ 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fishy Story
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fishy Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fishy Story
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Copyright. Deal with it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw if the girl were to win wtf would happen to diaper commercials on austria? Or must it exclude real babys already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if the parent's decide not to tell, what would happen if the kid finds out afterwars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photos of my child
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugly baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child Photos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]