Divorice trial-

[dtw blogger]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? mi

Any help is greatly appreciated here...

I'm a freelance writer and videographer- been doing this for years. My ex has successfully gotten the judge to limit my online portfolio to not include any pictures or video footage with our daughter.

However, he had no problems with this issue while we were married.

I would very much like to challenge this- any suggestions... thank you in advance.

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? mi

Any help is greatly appreciated here...

I'm a freelance writer and videographer- been doing this for years. My ex has successfully gotten the judge to limit my online portfolio to not include any pictures or video footage with our daughter.

However, he had no problems with this issue while we were married.

I would very much like to challenge this- any suggestions... thank you in advance.

Get an attorney. You probably won't be able to handle it on your own.

There are conflicting rights here. He can/will argue that he is concerned about protecting the privacy and safety of the daughter. That is a plausible argument - I refuse to allow my daughter to post videos or pictures on YouTube for that reason. Even if he allowed it in the past, sexual predation via the internet is a growing problem and he could reasonably have greater concerns now than in the past.

You, of course, will argue that you need to do it for your livelihood. The key will be demonstrating that you are unable to make a living without using your daughter's photos. That is an uphill battle - lots of photographers make a living without using their kids' photos. Even children's photographers don't necessarily use their kids' photos (I have a niece who is a professional photographer but doesn't use her children's pictures on her web site).

Since there are other pictures you can use, it will be hard to establish that your rights supercede his concerns about your daughter's safety. But see an attorney to see if there's relevant case history in your state.

 

[Ronin]

The key will be demonstrating that you are unable to make a living without using your daughter's photos.

I would argue that the key here is more one of free speech and the right of a parent to make their own determinations as to what is, and is not, in the best interests of their child.

Absent a showing that there is good reason to believe the use of the childs photos or videos in this parents trade or business could be harmful to the child, it is arguably an abuse of discretion for the judge to arbitrarily restrict what the parent had already been doing for some time now. Just because the other parent does not want that anymore.

If the judges ruling was very recent, if the rules allow it, and if it is not too late, you may want to request the judge provide findings that support the rulings.

As a practical matter, if there is a lot of resistance by the judge on this issue, it is probably not worth pursuing.

 

[mistoffolees]

I would argue that the key here is more one of free speech and the right of a parent to make their own determinations as to what is, and is not, in the best interests of their child.

Absent a showing that there is good reason to believe the use of the childs photos or videos in this parents trade or business could be harmful to the child, it is arguably an abuse of discretion for the judge to arbitrarily restrict what the parent had already been doing for some time now. Just because the other parent does not want that anymore.

There is an overwhelming push among parenting organizations to limit the use of photographs of children online in public sites. You might, for example, consider the FBI's position on Internet safety regarding children:
"Instruct your children to never upload (post) pictures of themselves onto the Internet"

Or try this one:
Kidshield - Child Photo Safety Online
"At Kidshield we would recommend that you only share your photograph's with family and friends through a secure email route and do not post any pictures in the public domain."

As I said, I've researched this fairly thoroughly and my daughter will not have any pictures or videos posted online. While the chances of any harm coming to her are small, the consequences are huge. Since there's no real benefit to having her pictures online to balance the risk, the decision is easy for me.

Furthermore, parents are ultimately responsible for the security of their children. The courts should err on the side of safety. If one parent says that he's done a lot of reading and children's advocacy groups suggest not publicly posting your child's pictures for safety reasons, it seems to me that the other parent would have the burden of proving that it's safe - which would be nearly impossible.

 

[LdiJ]

There is an overwhelming push among parenting organizations to limit the use of photographs of children online in public sites. You might, for example, consider the FBI's position on Internet safety regarding children:
"Instruct your children to never upload (post) pictures of themselves onto the Internet"

Or try this one:
Kidshield - Child Photo Safety Online
"At Kidshield we would recommend that you only share your photograph's with family and friends through a secure email route and do not post any pictures in the public domain."

As I said, I've researched this fairly thoroughly and my daughter will not have any pictures or videos posted online. While the chances of any harm coming to her are small, the consequences are huge. Since there's no real benefit to having her pictures online to balance the risk, the decision is easy for me.

Furthermore, parents are ultimately responsible for the security of their children. The courts should err on the side of safety. If one parent says that he's done a lot of reading and children's advocacy groups suggest not publicly posting your child's pictures for safety reasons, it seems to me that the other parent would have the burden of proving that it's safe - which would be nearly impossible.

I agree with this assessment. Unless there would be a VERY compelling reason to post children's pictures in the public domain, (and I cannot think of one accept for amber alert purposes or something similar) the "authorities" basically recommend that it not be done. Therefore why would a judge buck that?

If your child is a paid model, who is never identified, that could be a valid reason as well. However the child appearing on his/her parent's business website would have a far greater risk of being identified than a paid model who remains anonymous.