Company Posting Photos Of Staff

ra0044

Hi

Recently my company has started insisting on staff posing for photos with clients and doing work tasks so they can be posted on Facebook and twitter to promote the company.

I and others have questioned this as we really don't want our photos publicly posted but have basically been told to do it or lose your job.

One of my colleagues has already been criticised by a client for her appearance in one of the photos and was very upset by it but was told that the client was to important and to get over it.

Our contracts are very basic and don't cover social media issues.

Are we entitled to our privacy or can companies post what they like and we have no rights to how they use our image.

Any help would really be aprecisted

Losty Dublin

Do your contracts mention anything about marketing or photos or PR or the old classic, "any other duties"?

ra0044

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Do your contracts mention anything about marketing or photos or PR or the old classic, "any other duties"?

Hi.

Nothing specific in the contract about photos or marketing . I will look for the " any other duties " alright.

I am old enough to be working long before the invention of social media and the like an honestly feel this is a breach of our privacy. At this stage everything we do is photographed and random pictures shared through various media.

Maybe I am just a dinosaur.

Graham

Data protection is your friend here:

3.9 Can my employer post my photograph on the internet / intranet without my consent?

A photograph of a person constitutes their personal data and therefore any use of that photograph must be in accordance with the Data Protection Acts.

Staff should be informed of all such uses that will be made of their image and given an opportunity to object to such use.

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data_Protection_in_the_Workplace/1239.htm#9

seagull

They have been given information that the photos will be used. The opportunity to object is linked to a P45.

ra0044

seagull wrote: »

They have been given information that the photos will be used. The opportunity to object is linked to a P45.

Harsh but currently that is what the company say.

Peoples right to privacy these days seems to be eroded more and more and expectations of your acceptance of the new forms of social media are taken as granted.

I will take a closer look at the data protection legislation and hopefully some compromise can be reached

ra0044

seagull wrote: »

They have been given information that the photos will be used. The opportunity to object is linked to a P45.

Harsh but currently that is what the company say.

Peoples right to privacy these days seems to be eroded more and more and expectations of your acceptance of the new forms of social media are taken as granted.

I will take a closer look at the data protection legislation and hopefully some compromise can be reached

Graham

OP, to some extend it depends on how far you want to push things.

4.11 Can my employer post my photograph on the internet / intranet without my consent?

Not unless s/he has very convincing reasons for doing so. A photograph of a person is their personal data and therefore any use of that photograph must be in accordance with the Data Protection Acts. This normally means that the person must give their consent to such use.

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/FAQ-Staff-photographs/925.htm

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Graham

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would be my thinking too Fred.

Mrs OBumble

I'd expect that the objection would have to have some basis: eg person has a violent ex-partner so doesn't want his/her face publicised because it would show the ex where to find them.

Objecting simply because you don't like your photograph being taken - when clearly the job requires doing things in public with the clients - might not get given much weight.



(If this was work and jobs, I might suggest that you subtly look for ways to get clients to complain about the photos, as this is likely to be more effective.)

Graham

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'd expect that the objection would have to have some basis: eg person has a violent ex-partner so doesn't want his/her face publicised because it would show the ex where to find them.

Objecting simply because you don't like your photograph being taken - when clearly the job requires doing things in public with the clients - might not get given much weight.



(If this was work and jobs, I might suggest that you subtly look for ways to get clients to complain about the photos, as this is likely to be more effective.)

There is no such proviso around the information I posted previously from the DP website.

Do you have any examples where "must give consent" was subject to such conditions?

Timberrrrrrrr

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'd expect that the objection would have to have some basis: eg person has a violent ex-partner so doesn't want his/her face publicised because it would show the ex where to find them.

Objecting simply because you don't like your photograph being taken - when clearly the job requires doing things in public with the clients - might not get given much weight.



(If this was work and jobs, I might suggest that you subtly look for ways to get clients to complain about the photos, as this is likely to be more effective.)

What if the photo's are not in public though? Expecting (forcing?) staff to pose for pictures with clients in the office environment is (imo) wrong.

Carawaystick

Consent must be freely given, coerced consent isn't really consent.

ra0044

Just to clarify that we have been working for years without the need for photos and they have no bearing on our actual role with the clients. The photos are purely a social media tool.

It is the fact that they are forcing and not asking us or taking in to consideration long term employees hesitation regarding there own privicy.

Timberrrrrrrr

ra0044 wrote: »

Just to clarify that we have been working for years without the need for photos and they have no bearing on our actual role with the clients. The photos are purely a social media tool.

It is the fact that they are forcing and not asking us or taking in to consideration long term employees hesitation regarding there own privicy.

Just politely refuse and explain that you are very uncomfortable with your picture being posted on social media sites.

Do you have a union? Are you full time permanent in the company?

A_Sober_Paddy

Could it be argued that unless they pay you imagine rights they can not take you pictures and use them

seamus

It is a thorny one.

If the client(s) are actually eager to have their pictures taken, then a refusal to consent will in effect prevent you from being able to work with that client.

If all client contracts include a clause that states the company may take photos for social media use, then you've got an even stickier situation since the refusal to be in photos may preclude your working in any client-facing role.

Mrs O'Bumble is correct in effect. While the DPA does not state that your objection has to be reasonable, at the same time any discussion about constructive or unfair dismissal would include the reason for objection to these photographs and any reasonable accommodation either side has made to work around the problem.

If the company considered promotion through social media to be a vital part of their ongoing business and an employee doggedly refused to participate without compromise, then the company does have a stronger case for redundancy or dismissal.

Image rights don't really apply here - that's to do with the promotion of an individual as a trademark or known brand as opposed to just being a picture of you. If your picture was being used as part of the company's brand strategy that would be a different matter.

A_Sober_Paddy

seamus wrote: »

It is a thorny one.

If the client(s) are actually eager to have their pictures taken, then a refusal to consent will in effect prevent you from being able to work with that client.

If all client contracts include a clause that states the company may take photos for social media use, then you've got an even stickier situation since the refusal to be in photos may preclude your working in any client-facing role.

Mrs O'Bumble is correct in effect. While the DPA does not state that your objection has to be reasonable, at the same time any discussion about constructive or unfair dismissal would include the reason for objection to these photographs and any reasonable accommodation either side has made to work around the problem.

If the company considered promotion through social media to be a vital part of their ongoing business and an employee doggedly refused to participate without compromise, then the company does have a stronger case for redundancy or dismissal.

Image rights don't really apply here - that's to do with the promotion of an individual as a trademark or known brand as opposed to just being a picture of you. If your picture was being used as part of the company's brand strategy that would be a different matter.

It could be argued that pictures with clients are a branding strategy tho no

Graham

seamus wrote: »

Mrs O'Bumble is correct in effect. While the DPA does not state that your objection has to be reasonable, at the same time any discussion about constructive or unfair dismissal would include the reason for objection to these photographs and any reasonable accommodation either side has made to work around the problem.

Again, I'd be really interested in seeing some case law to back this position up.

OP you mentioned originally that other colleagues are similarly unhappy with this new social media requirement. Perhaps a group complaint to the Data Protection registrar would help limit the scope for unfair dismissal.

seamus

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

It could be argued that pictures with clients are a branding strategy tho no

Yes, but not in the way I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the scenario where a company makes an individual synonymous with the brand. Such as the "Steve and Rachel" pair in the Bank of Ireland ads or Ian Dempsey's Lidl voiceovers.

In these cases, recognition of the person or part of the person is a key part of the brand recognition and therefore royalties can apply.

Where you have a photo of people doing some work, it's not the same thing unless it's the same person all the time or the linking the person to the brand is a key focus of the ad.

In cases where you have a stock photo of people used in an ad, typically a one-off payment is made to each - a modelling fee.

Where the individual forms part of the brand, larger fees apply - typically a "buyout", which is in effect compensation for the person not being able to do other ads (e.g. Ian Dempsey can't get VO work for any other grocery retailer) as well as a one-off fee for each usage of their image/brand.

In the OP's case, the company aren't trying to make them a poster boy/girl for the company, and therefore compensation or royalties wouldn't automatically apply.

Again, I'd be really interested in seeing some case law to back this position up.

To be fair, pretty much every case that comes up for unfair dismissals tends to focus on how reasonable both sides were and what attempts were made to come to a compromise that didn't breach the employees' rights or otherwise seriously jeopardise their personal circumstances.