DwainRowe wrote in post #16887212
I realize and agree that your posting of your son's picture would significantly raise the possibility that someone might use the image in a manner not of your choosing. But, you do realize that all of us (at least in the states) can have our pictures taken in public at any time and we would have no control over the use of those images unless they were used for specific "commercial purposes", yes?
As a parent, and now as a grandparent, I guess I really don't understand this paranoia. (Much like the paranoia of posting a photo of one's car with the license plate pixelated "for safety").
Specifically what could a ne'er-do-well do with an image of a child (or other) that would result in tangible risk or discomfort?
Dwain
Evelakes got one part of it and to answer your first question, yes, I know that. Consider it mitigation of risk. We don't want images of him in public to be used for anything at all. What someone could do is take his image and use it as a stock photo or promoting a product. Even if we didn't mind the product, we don't want his image out there to be used as that.
I mean, let's face it, the chances of it are extremely slight to nil, especially considering I'm just plain not that good! I probably wouldn't mind being able to post photos of him in public, but to use two cliches: Pick your battles. (I simply don't care enough to argue in favor of posting his photo in public.) ..and... Happy wife, happy life! 