Should I have handled this differently?

Maybe she should have sought legal advice, they would tell her there was nothing she could do then and charge her £50 in the process :D

I assume you were on your own property or someone's you know for the party? Even if you wern't I can't see it being a problem.


Some people don't think these days, they are fed **** from tabloids and whatever they hear on TV.
 
Last edited:
Pegasus2 said:
Maybe she should have sought legal advice, they would tell her there was nothing she could do then and charge her £50 in the process :D

I assume you were on your own property or someone's you know for the party?


Some people don't think these days, they are fed **** from tabloids and whatever they hear on TV.
Click to expand...

Yes Rob, it was at my Brother's house. Told my sis-in-law to give her my mobile number if she carries on about it.
 
i think you handled it well. just a pity your pictures are ruined. i would just have blocked her.
 
gumbo-67 said:
i think you handled it well. just a pity your pictures are ruined. i would just have blocked her.
Click to expand...

She is now ;)

Hopefully it's completely p***ing her off that she can no longer message me :lol:

Ironically my email address is tagged along the side of each image..... although seeing as she doesn't know what a URL is she probably struggles with emails :D
 
charge her for looking after the child for the time she was at your house
 
Russ77 said:
It's only this that's made me look at it in a little more depth.

I noticed there's now an option where the album is available to your friend only BUT if they tag one of their friends, that photo is then visible to all of the tagged friend's friends.... (I think that works :lol:) hence this woman could see the photos and then so could all of her own friends.
Click to expand...

If you disable tagging then only those in your friend's list will see the photos.
 
ziggy©;4860558 said:
If you disable tagging then only those in your friend's list will see the photos.
Click to expand...

Good to know. I'm getting right naff'd off with the way Facebook keeps changing everything every 20 minutes!

You handled the situation a lot better than I probably would have.
 
by the OPs account it was a private party (presumably on private premises) at which he had permission to be and take photos from the organiser - his sister. That is a more bullet proof position than public.

I've had this happen before with weddings - but ive always taken the line that i had full permission to take and display the photographs, and if they didnt want little jonny to be in them they should have kept him out of them at the time. If they are subject to a care or protection order i would of course delete them, but for random paranoia they can go jump
 
The thing that makes me laugh about these people is that they say they will take legal action.If they went to a solicitor the first thing he would say is have you got a minimum of £300 deposit before we start drawing up the papers for the County Court. That's if he was really nasty and hadn't told her she didn't have a cat in hells chance of getting any damages or an instruction from a Judge to remove the images.
These are just complete idiots who watch to many American legal soaps.The problem is that when one removes the photos at their demand with threat of legal action, is that they actually believe they are in the right by law,that then perpetuates the belief .
I would be tempted to remove only if asked nicely and if threatened with legal action refuse to remove.:D:D:clap:
 
Jayst84 said:
The tricky bit is, that if they were subject to a protection order, telling you that that was the reason they wanted the photos down, would potentially breach that protection order.

Still, doesn't sound like it was the case here, and yes, most people are idiots. :p
Click to expand...

I don't really see that - i do a fair bit with local schools, and with a kids footie team and ive been told a couple of times that a certain child can't be photographed due to a protection order

its not like they have to share any detail so its not actually a breach to mention that one has been put in place
 
I'd not have been so polite and I'd certainly not have edited the images
 
I keep meaning to post up some of my (not so) handy work in obscuring these children :lol:

I set off with the best intentions of editing very subtlely but with nigh on 20 images I got bored and resorted to gausian blur and elipses :lol:

A couple of hours after I called my sis-in-law to say it was sorted my brother called to say she would rather I take them all down...... at that point I lost it a bit and said no way, not happening. I've blocked the daft bint now, she doesn't even know I exist!

To be honest if my sis-in-law keeps on about it I'll tell her I wont bother bringing my camera to parties or any other gatherings at her house. She doesn't get that it's a complete non-starter where this daft bint's concerned and I have told her to give said bint my phone number if she gets any more aggro from her ;)

The only other way she could see any of the photos is by logging on to her friend's facebook to see (we only have one friend in common).

As I said before, she doesn't have to give me a reason but I'd have thought if there was a more serious reaons behind why she didn't want her little cherubs on FB then she might have at least hinted to it.
 
This woman is clearly a silly cow and should have been ignored.

Find the image she hates the most and get mugs and plates made up for your sis in law to display so she'll see them the next time she visits. Should send her into orbit with any luck :D
 
This made me giggle, perhaps, expanding on the mug idea.. You get a mug made up for each family with a pic of their kids on it as a momento, hers would be either blurred kids or sad faces :)

But it's truly silly that she went postal when all she had to do on the first request is just inform you what her kids are wearing and in what pictures. Some people really get their panties in a twist over the silliest things!
 
Or give all the parents mugs with their kids on and she gets a blank one! Would confuse her no end ;)
 
Russ77 said:
I set off with the best intentions of editing very subtlely but with nigh on 20 images I got bored and resorted to gausian blur and elipses :lol:
Click to expand...
Can you not set up an action that pastes one of these over the offending faces?

200px-Trollface.svg.png


Or maybe just replace them with a big white rectangle with a red cross in it?
 
Last edited:
HMansfield said:
Can you not set up an action that pastes one of these over the offending faces?

200px-Trollface.svg.png


Or maybe just replace them with a big white rectangle with a red cross in it?
Click to expand...

Damn!!! Why didn't I think of that!!!
 
Bilko said:
Knowing how kids like seeing their photos on the tinterweb, I feel sorry for the child in question.

"Why can't I see the party photos mummy?"
Click to expand...

I think Robert, that people like the mother in question would not have a problem if they had plastered the images on a public networking site, but take offence if someone else does it, no matter how innocent the reason.
We unfortunately have a couple of nieces like the mother in question who play by a different set of rules to those they try to impose on others.
 
A white square over each face with 'error 404' should do it.
 
Wow, mums like this give the rest of us a bad name. The argument of 'you never know who can see them' is tosh - see what??? Where do you live? I'm tempted to get her little cherubs photo in the park or something like that!!
 
Iris said:
Wow, mums like this give the rest of us a bad name. The argument of 'you never know who can see them' is tosh - see what??? Where do you live? I'm tempted to get her little cherubs photo in the park or something like that!!
Click to expand...

Photographers like you give the rest a bad name. Would you really be so out of the way vindictive as you suggest?

You have rights, you have responsibilities. Your responsibilities can roughly be summed up as, "Be good, play nice with the other children". Is it really so hard to comprehend that respecting the wishes of others might be a good thing? "Me have camera, me have rights that trump everyone elses" is really not a good attitude to take. The OP has handled this well, but many of the responses (if they're not taking the p**s) are more than a little childish and don't suggest a mature attitude to getting along with others.


(and if anyone wanted to just post the images and damn the Defiant, as it were, the clue is in the original post.. switching off tagging when posting to Facebook would have been far simpler than spending time manipulating images for sadistic satisfaction - maybe less fun though?)
 
Alastair said:
Photographers like you give the rest a bad name. Would you really be so out of the way vindictive as you suggest?

You have rights, you have responsibilities. Your responsibilities can roughly be summed up as, "Be good, play nice with the other children". Is it really so hard to comprehend that respecting the wishes of others might be a good thing? "Me have camera, me have rights that trump everyone elses" is really not a good attitude to take. The OP has handled this well, but many of the responses (if they're not taking the p**s) are more than a little childish and don't suggest a mature attitude to getting along with others.


(and if anyone wanted to just post the images and damn the Defiant, as it were, the clue is in the original post.. switching off tagging when posting to Facebook would have been far simpler than spending time manipulating images for sadistic satisfaction - maybe less fun though?)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Jen was being 100% serious.:thinking:

We all understand our responsibilities, but when you're faced with this level of idiocy from the general public, it's natural to blow off a little steam on Internet forums. No one gets hurt and no ones business is suffering.
 
Last edited:
Yep, sense of humour failure there I think.
 
Nobody I can see has said it yet - but make sure you don't invite them next year... You won't have to worry about them being in the photo then.. Maybe mum will wonder why the kids aren't getting invited anywhere anymore..
 
cymruchris said:
Nobody I can see has said it yet - but make sure you don't invite them next year... You won't have to worry about them being in the photo then.. Maybe mum will wonder why the kids aren't getting invited anywhere anymore..
Click to expand...

It probably hasn't been said because it's not exactly fair to take it out on the kids in question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The photographs no longer portray a happy party, they look ridiculous. This isn't aimed at your PP skills, Russ.

If no laws were broken, I'd have told her to sod off. Really, which parent take's their children to a party not knowing full well that one or more parent will have a camera.

Cheers.
 
posiview said:
The photographs no longer portray a happy party, they look ridiculous. This isn't aimed at your PP skills, Russ.

If no laws were broken, I'd have told her to sod off. Really, which parent take's their children to a party not knowing full well that one or more parent will have a camera.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, purely did this to keep the peace. There are still plenty of photos with my niece and the other kids having fun, plus if they do any prints I've got the originals without any blurring.

As others have said, I think the person who looks the most foolish out of this is the blurry kids' Mum ;)
 
They do look suspicious now and would lead to questions over what is going on with those kids!
May have been better to just not show the photos and if anyone wondered why they are not shown get them to contact the person responsible.
 
ernesto said:
They do look suspicious now and would lead to questions over what is going on with those kids!
May have been better to just not show the photos and if anyone wondered why they are not shown get them to contact the person responsible.
Click to expand...

I see you point completely, however my niece is in each of those pictures enjoying her party....... and there's a pretty big principle at stake here as far as I'm concerned.

Had the woman approached this differently then I may have considered completely removing certain photos, demanding they're taken down and threatening legal action is a different matter ;)
 
I've just realised how used I've gotten to the ubiquitous pixelation/blurring of faces/identifying features - and it's all the more ironic and disturbing because nowadays we have much less 'privacy' and far more 'monitoring' than in former times yet this pales into insignificance when someone takes a photo of someone else - especially when it's a kid or a stranger. Just think of cctv, electronic cash handling, electronic mail, telephony - and all those computer records that any company or department that you ever deal with keep and how those records get dispersed - we've all had junk mail and dodgy sales calls where the sender/caller knows our name and often recent purchasing activity (or if we're due on an insurance renewal) - not to mention how much folk can give away just by commenting and contributing on 'social' websites.

I find it incredulous how some folk can get totally carried away with innocuous but joyful photos shared online but most likely have no perspective of how much they expose and broadcast themselves in other ways.
 
When did piñata become de rigueur at Essex kiddies parties - in my day it was jelly, ice cream, musical chairs and pass-the-parcel that got us all excited? :lol: :D
 
weybourne said:
When did piñata become de rigueur at Essex kiddies parties - in my day it was jelly, ice cream, musical chairs and pass-the-parcel that got us all excited? :lol: :D
Click to expand...

I dunno but it's usually funny to watch my brother (or my Dad in this case) taking a blow below the belt in the process :lol:
 
weybourne said:
When did piñata become de rigueur at Essex kiddies parties - in my day it was jelly, ice cream, musical chairs and pass-the-parcel that got us all excited? :lol: :D
Click to expand...

It's due to the decline of the western civilisation...or "Americanisation" as I prefer to call it. :lol:
 
We had to skip musical chairs but I can confirm there was jelly & ice cream and the second picture if of pass the parcel ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top