Old Photo Permissions

[Maydup]

I sometimes look at photos and enjoy conversations on a site that Remembers old times in the town I grew up. This week a member of the group has posted old school photos from his archives when I actually think belong to the local paper, hes a retired employee. We have looked at school photos from all eras and people are listing names of the faces.

I'm finding it really uncomfortable as these people were children at the time and I've seen a picture of a close relative who knows nothing about the postings. I dont want to be a spoil sport, but I dont think its right. In their day the pictures might have been in the local paper, and at most, cut out and kept in a scrapbook ot two. Is it appropriate in this day and age to post them on line?

[Canary42]

There's no ethics in cyberspace

[kvalidir]

I think it's pretty normal. Essentially hundreds of people would have group school photos at the time and if they were in the local paper they will be in the public domain anyway. Do you think your relative might object? I think most people will just find them sweet, and not really a massive breach of privacy unless there is something I'm unaware of x

[maggiebee]

I'm a member of a local group called "Old School Photographs" and there are hundreds of photos on it dating from the 1920s up to the present day. Never had a complaint so far as I know, in fact members are always looking for photos from particular years.

[sherrardk]

I follow a similar page for my home town, I just find it interesting and I’ve been in one of two of the photos myself (wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t been tagged though). Can’t see anything wrong in it.

[kvalidir]

If you're asking what the point of law is, it's essentially that if the photo was taken in a public place then there's nothing you can do about it and if privately if consent was given at the time likewise. Copyright always rests with the photographer not the subjects (except under exceptional circumstances or if the photographer is commissioned on the basis that it won't). x

[Maydup]

Maybe its just me then! It just feels a bit weird nowadays for a bloke to have all these school photos, none of which he's in, and for everyone to be naming the rows of little kids all sitting cross legged on the floor.

I dont think I feel the same if they had been posted by people in those classes, but of course it doesn't make much difference really who posts them does it?

[sherrardk]

Maybe you’re over-thinking it?

[tinkerbell23]

On these pages I tend to find people are almost glad of finding old photos of themselves or relatives! X

[JimF]

It seems fairly innocent and harmless to me, Maydup. Surely if this man had these photos in his possession for some sort of unsavoury intent, then he wouldn't be putting them on the public internet! He'd just keep them to himself, wouldn't he?

I'm curious though why you mention that the children are sitting cross-legged on the floor. Are you suggesting that you can see up the girls' skirts or something? Is that your problem with the pictures?

[bednobs]

i have an old yearbook with photos of the whole school in clasess in. i am necessarily only i one of those photos but can see the other people. i could show that book to anyone i wanted to, and cant see any difference between showing it to someone and posting it online

[New Judge]

"I'm finding it really uncomfortable as these people were children at the time and I've seen a picture of a close relative who knows nothing about the postings. I dont want to be a spoil sport, but I dont think its right."

I find your discomfort somewhat odd. It seems to me that photographs of children in everyday situations (I'm not including child pornography here) fills many people with discomfort such as yours or even dread. Why is that? Children exist, people see them, people take photographs of them (and as kvalidir has pointed out, no permission to do so is necessary). Why should others not look at those photographs? I just find the who issue very puzzling. It's as if children are completely off-limits: they most not be photographed; they must not be approached; they must not be spoken to.

This seems, as far as I can make out, a peculiarly British phenomenon. People in other countries I have visited find it very puzzling. And so do I.

[Maydup]

You're probably all correct, I'm over thinking it. Too much time spent implementing the GDPR at work, collecting and logging image consents!

[Peter Pedant]

yes I have seen photos of my relations on the internet
and basically thought - well if I didnt want them filched I wouldnt have published them in the first place.

Babies look like babies - they are in fact designed to do so. [better chance of survival if everyone says - oh thweet ickle baby - rather than - oh that is mrs so and so's throw it under the bus...] -

I remember these photos being taken ( er of me not of your relations) and I dont recollect anyone saying - "dont want to do vat"

there are huge photo data banks - didnt Bill Gates buy the Kodak back catalog and start charging? and they of course get noughty if anyone uses them - not for delicate reasons but for reasons of 'they didnt pay moolah!"

[Peter Pedant]

// and cant see any difference between showing it to someone and posting it online//

oh heavens I can see a million reasons
a) you have control over who sees it when it is on paper
b) the numbers are necessarily limited and controllable by you

a and b do not apply to the internet

Luckily - the legislation for medical records recognised this very early on ( early nineties I think) - that there was a big big difference going down to medical records and pulling someones paper file and putting it on the internet.

I quailed when Zuckerberg said "privacy is a thing of the past" [ and his underlings echoed, 'yes o great one! - the past!' - not his own privacy of course. He has a plaster over his laptop photo lens

[bednobs]

hey peter, i know 35 million people and they all want to look at my yearbook so yaboo sucks to you :)

[woofgang]

I sort of get Maydup's point. My late brother in law, who lived abroad, was an extrememly unpleasant person, estranged from all his family. I knew where he lived, and he had my address and when my husband died, I wrote a formal letter to let him know...heard nothing back which was what i expected. Because I didn't trust him, I used periodically to google his name to keep tabs a bit, then one time I did it up popped a photo of me and DH from my wedding day. He had died and his partner had posted a load of photos online that she had found in his possessions. There was a contact email so I got in touch and gave my condolences but asked for the picture to be taken down. She never responded and the photo is still there...I guess she made the website and abandoned it...or maybe she died herself...It does feel kind of creepy and unpleasant to know that such a personal picture is out there and there is nothing I can do.

[jno]

isn't that what Friends Reunited did all the time?

In my day we used to have class photos taken and anyone in the class could buy one - and put it on friendsreunited or similar sites 50 years later if they wanted, with names if they could remember them.

Has anyone actually complained?

[woofgang]

yes, friends reunited did Jno...and I didn't like it and didn't register.

[jno]

I did register, woofgang, but kept my details private. None the less someone traced me through it, which surprised me; but he was a nice chap and I was happy to hear from him. I do wonder if the site's privacy settings were leaky; but it's gone now.