Privacy commissioner slams company for using photo of crying boy without consent

(Archive photo)
photo: 123 RF

A company has been hit with online and offline bullying and harassment after using a video of a crying child in an ad campaign without his consent.

Now the Privacy Commissioner has ruled that the unnamed company effectively turned the little boy into a “meme for profit” and in doing so breached his privacy.

According to the ruling released this week, the original video was uploaded to social media without the consent of the children or their families.

It is unclear why the child was crying or who filmed the video and posted it online, but it is still circulating despite the family’s efforts to delete it.

A few months later, a New Zealand-based organization decided to use a still image of the boy crying, along with a quote from the video, in an advertising campaign.

Due to the group’s huge reach and social media influence, the boy fell victim again, leading to a recurrence of online and in-person bullying, and his mental health quickly deteriorated.

After being contacted by the family, the company removed the ad from its social media accounts.

However, the family was unable to reach a resolution with the company and complained to the Privacy Commission, which investigated the matter.

The company told the committee that the image was in fact publicly available because the video had gone viral, it was unaware the child was a minor, and others had reposted the video with impunity.

Now, Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster has ruled that it is clear from the video that the child is a minor and that extreme caution needs to be exercised when disseminating information about children.

Mr Webster said the company had taken no steps to contact the boy’s family to obtain permission to use his likeness, which in itself was a breach of the Advertising Standards Code.

“This is a David versus Goliath battle, with the onus and due diligence on the organisation with a professional team of communications experts,” he said in his findings.

“Ignorance of the situation does not justify making decisions that will ultimately cause harm.”

Webster said the video itself was not readily available and the company had to track it down specifically after the family requested it be removed.

“Just because information is public doesn’t mean it’s OK to reuse or republish it for your own purposes,” Webster said.

“This could have a significant impact on everyone, especially those who are more vulnerable, such as minors.”

The finding noted that organisations needed to be aware of their obligations under the Privacy Act and in this case he found the company had breached the Privacy Act.

Webster advises organizations to stop and think before sharing information.

“Would the other party be surprised if they found out you were using or sharing their information in this way? Is there anything that would make them vulnerable, or do you suspect they don’t want the information shared? If the answer is ‘maybe’ or ‘yes’, then it might be a good time to re-evaluate what you’re using the information for,” he said.

The agency apologized for the harm caused, and the two sides reached a financial settlement.

-This article was originally published on New Zealand Herald.